[zimbloth]

I would not own 99% of the CDs I purchased if I had not downloaded it and listened to see if I liked it first. I always end up buying the CDs of albums I like. If I download an album, and I don't like it and hence don't end up buying the CD, what's the difference? It's not like I would have just bought that album anyways.

Obviously some people out there will just download for free and not buy the CDs, which sucks, but that's not how I work so I don't have to think twice about downloading.

[DelfinoPie]

I used to download a few tracks to sample an album if it was good I would delete the tracks and by the actual CD...if it was bad I just deleted the tracks.

I don't even do that anymore, I just buy the CD regardless.

I've never owned an album someone has burnt for me, similarly, I have never copied a CD for someone else. I'm so ghetto lol.

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by zimbloth

I would not own 99% of the CDs I purchased if I had not downloaded it and listened to see if I liked it first. I always end up buying the CDs of albums I like. If I download an album, and I don't like it and hence don't end up buying the CD, what's the difference?

Exactly. same here. If i hadnt been downloading, i'd never had heard of a whole bunch of bands i like, or got the chance to listen to them. If i liked them i buy the album. after 6-7 years of buying CDs (i was too busy buying video games in middleschool and the first half of highschool), i've bought close to 450 CDs.

[All hail the Gnome]

I would ask this question: with the advent of Myspace and nearly every band in the entire world having a MS page, is this not enough for people to get to know a band well enough to know if they want to buy their album or not? Do people really need to continue to download illegally? I really think that with a lot of people it has more to do with not wanting to pay $15 a pop for a CD anymore. The bands need this support from their fans, not for the paycheck but for the backing from their respective labels.

[hirah]

i'm really odd on this subject. i wont download illegal music . if i need a song or 2, i'll buy it on itunes. if i wnt a cd i'll buy it, lately on itunes also. i think that it directly takes money away from the artists. let's face it, most people that download free music will never actually buy it. they are a minority.
but i have downloaded some software. i justify this by telling myself that i am not taking money away from anyone, because i would NEVER have been able to justify spending thousands on the software in the first place.
a bit hypocritical? maybe a little, ok alot. but i'm sticking to it.

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by All hail the Gnome

I would ask this question: with the advent of Myspace and nearly every band in the entire world having a MS page, is this not enough for people to get to know a band well enough to know if they want to buy their album or not? Do people really need to continue to download illegally? I really think that with a lot of people it has more to do with not wanting to pay $15 a pop for a CD anymore. The bands need this support from their fans, not for the paycheck but for the backing from their respective labels.

1 or 2 songs from an album doesnt tell if you if its a good CD or not. Look at pop artists, most of their CDs only have one or two worthwhile songs on it anyway.

[DelfinoPie]

Originally Posted by Metal Ken

1 or 2 songs from an album doesnt tell if you if its a good CD or not. Look at pop artists, most of their CDs only have one or two worthwhile songs on it anyway.

And theyre usually the ones they DONT release.

[darren]

Originally Posted by jaredowty

Yeah, it still just seems different for some reason. Not because of the actual process itself, but how it's percieved - I mean, you don't see people getting busted for holding burned CDs on them, while plenty of people are getting into trouble for illegally downloaded songs on their computers.

I believe the word you're looking for is, "hypocrite".

[eleven59]

Originally Posted by All hail the Gnome

I would ask this question: with the advent of Myspace and nearly every band in the entire world having a MS page, is this not enough for people to get to know a band well enough to know if they want to buy their album or not? Do people really need to continue to download illegally? I really think that with a lot of people it has more to do with not wanting to pay $15 a pop for a CD anymore. The bands need this support from their fans, not for the paycheck but for the backing from their respective labels.

Again, I wouldn't have ever heard of Porcupine Tree (for example) if I hadn't downloaded their albums first. As a result, I've bought 2 of their albums in the more expensive, DVD versions, from their online store (money goes more directly to the artists), which was clearly a lot of money I never would have spent without hearing the band first.

And if a band isn't selling enough CDs to keep their label happy, but are still selling out shows, and selling lots of merch, they can get signed by a (more reasonable and forward thinking) indie label, or go fully independent and do it themselves.

The music speaks for itself, if the band is good enough, they'll find an audience, and make enough money to keep going, whether they sell CDs or not (and 9 times out of 10, they'll still sell CDs anyways).

Trust me, I spent 2 years studying this stuff, and it was the main topic of conversation at Canadian Music Week when I went.

Look at a band like Reel Big Fish, they were on the same label for years, never selling enough CDs to pay back their recording advance, but having a strong fanbase who buy lots of merch and go to every show. Finally, last year, their label (Jive, who they weren't happy with at all) let them out of their contract, and now they're working completely independently, immediately released a live CD and DVD exclusively through their online store and legal downloading sites, and are set to release a new album this year, and head out on a major co-headlining tour across the states.

[Paul Warren]

Originally Posted by eleven59

I love living in Canada where they don't have silly laws like this.

I download music, but if it's worth it, I'll buy the CD, DVDs, concert tickets, t-shirts, etc.

CD sales contribute very little to the artist's paycheck, and that's only after they pay back the recording costs to the label (assuming the label is honest about the recording costs, etc. which they rarely are). Only multi-platinum selling artists see a dime from record sales (on major labels, indies are better, especially when you don't spend much on recording).

Bands get most of their income from concert tickets and merch.

Downloading creates fans, period. Anti-piracy laws create more piracy. Bands supporting anti-piracy laws...well, you heard St. Anger

A lot of what you're stating here are absolute myths when we speak about smaller artists trying to make it. Ever wonder why a lesser known artist never comes to your town to perform? It's because it's too expensive and they can't afford to tour that much. When I saw Frank Gambale a couple of years ago, there were 30 people there. Think that was a successful tour? I know what he got paid and it's not pretty. I've had the fortune of having this discussion with a lot of artists who we all know and respect as players. And they claim to be directly hurt by downloaders because they make a reasonable profit when selling a cd through Guitar9 or Favored Nations etc. As a matter of fact, lots of them take offense to the fact that people think they make so much off of touring and merch when the facts don't bear that out for them. If bands truly make their money off of touring and merch sales and not from cds, then why sell the cd at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to GIVE the music away for free to everybody, thus creating a much larger fanbase for them to sell concert tickets and merch? All smaller artists who aren't under contract to huge labels should do this to grow their sources of other income if this is true, right? Who is going to be the first amongst us to try this theory?

You may feel that downloading creates more fans and you might be right. But that doesn't mean it creates more fans who actually support that artist financially. Having fans who just take the music isn't exactly helpful to the artist if the artist can't afford to tour and have huge lines of merch etc. I have had too many students over the years who don't buy a single cd to see what the real outcome is. They claim they'll buy it eventually, but it's the minority that ever really get around to it. Good intentions perhaps, but it's just easier to keep the $15 and the digital copy. I respect the fact that you claim to support the artists and that's good, but I don't believe for a second the majority of people out there do that. There's this thing called human nature.

I don't download without the artist's consent because there is absolutely zero reason to do so. You can still be exposed to any band and any genre. If I want to check out legitimate samples of a cd to see if I want to purchase it, I can visit Amazon.com, Cdnow, Favored Nations, Guitar9, the artist's homepage, the label's homepage, the artist's myspace page etc etc etc. The opportunities for listening before you buy are endless while still respecting the artist's rights over that music. And there's nothing I love doing more than buying a cd DIRECTLY from the artist which is also possible with many great guitarists out there. It's great being able to send them the full asking amount for their product. But I digress...

For what it's worth, I support downloading when it's the artist's choice. In other words, in the internet era, I think every artist should put up plenty of samples on their websites to give people a proper perspective of the cd being sold. If they can't even do that, then that's just silly and only hurting themselves. But at least it's still their own business decision and they can live or die by it.

paul