What would make you pay for music downloads?

[Sef]

Gustav asked:
"However, for online downloads, you can't really re-sell these, you downloaded it, that's it. Am I right?"
Well, the copyright laws mostly won't permit this in most countries. Personally I would think that should be OK but I don't write the laws You need permission to sell digital files in most countries. It is a bit silly since you can re-sell your CDs, but it's really hard to compare the two (you could in theory re-sell your file over and over, which is not true for a CD).

And finally some bait:

Is there any truth in the claim that people would pay for a download mostly because the debate on file sharing has given the people guilt over ripping off artists, "stealing" etc?

Keep the comments coming please!

Cheers
Rikard

* Starting with new additions a while ago and slowly converting the old catalog

I'm not an expert but I suspect that the argument goes along the following lines. Yes, you can resell a download in the same way that you can resell a CD. What you can't do is copy the download and sell that. Given that you can rip CDs it really all amounts to the same thing. And yes, you are right about the word "theft". It's an emotive issue, and although you are not taking something without the owner's permission (since the owner put it on a file share to be copied), most people know that it is wrong and does deprive the artist of revenue. I know that there will be arguments about buying more legitimate music because it introduced them to genres etc, but I think that's a get out. Although I don't know the rules specifically I like to think of music a bit like software. You don't own the software, you license it for your own personal use. It's a transferable license in as much as you can sell it to someone else, but all you really own is the media on which the music exists.

By the way, nice bait. I don't believe that the debate has caused guilt. I think that the guilt has either always been there or that it hasn't. It's pretty obvious without a debate that if you are getting something for free that could be bought, that you are depriving someone of something. The way to prevent the crime, is either by removing the ability to commit the crime, or by making it so risky that it's not worth it (deterrence). Sad to say that guilt is probably only a minor factor.

[Sef]

There's no 'kind of' about it. All their stuff is subscription based, BUT you get to keep the files if you cancel your subscription, with no restrictions or limitations of any kind on playback or file movement. Now that sort of subscription model works for me - indeed, the 300+ albums I've downloaded from eMusic are testament to this.

I prefer to think of it as a "pre-buy" model. You pay a certain amount a month to download a predefined number of tracks. I'm not all that familiar with it though - do you get anything else for the money (like unlimited access to stream before you download for instance)?

[Sef]

     I prefer to use services that don't tie you to a proprietary downloader like Amazon does, but the killer is a proprietary player and format. I cancelled Rhapsody when I realized how restrictive it was. I don't want to rent, I want to own, just like with CDs. In the end you want to use the files the same way you do with your rips, and if you can't you'll go elsewhere. So I'll put up with the Amazon downloader since once I have the files I can use them how I want. Actually, their downloader is OK. They will need to let you redownload, which they don't permit at the moment, but that's because it's still in beta, I think.

Yes, but be careful. 30 Years ago I was happily collecting an LP library for all the good it does me now. Proprietary players for files that you "own" is a big no-no, but a proprietary player for a streaming subscription would be no big deal. Big question (ie bait) is what makes you think that a CD player isn't a proprietary player? I certainly thought my turntable would see me to my demise!

[PerfectWagnerite]

I prefer to think of it as a "pre-buy" model. You pay a certain amount a month to download a predefined number of tracks. I'm not all that familiar with it though - do you get anything else for the money (like unlimited access to stream before you download for instance)?

It really doesn't matter to me whether they (those who run the online subscription sites) pull the plug on you in the future. I already have more music than I can listen to during my lifetime. If they pull the plug I'll just listen to something eles.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It would take a lot to get me to go 100% download. Why? Because there's no urgency for me to do so. There's simply no pressing need at the moment.

CDs are a snap to acquire, can be had at reasonable prices, are versatile, and being digital can be used the exact same way as a download.

Plus I get state of the art sound, liner notes, a physical object with which to accumulate, and a built-in safety net if I ever transfer my collection to my hard drive. And, of course, CDs are virtually indestructible.

Which brings up another point: downloads are inherently at risk sitting in a computer's hard drive. When the crash comes, the music's gone.

Yes, I can back up the files...but why should I have to do such a thing? The format - the industry! - is requiring I come up with a solution to a problem that should have already been addressed by the format's chief makers.

Downloading just doesn't add up to me...

[eclassical]

I'm not an expert but I suspect that the argument goes along the following lines. Yes, you can resell a download in the same way that you can resell a CD. What you can't do is copy the download and sell that. Given that you can rip CDs it really all amounts to the same thing.

Not quite the same. You can't rip the CD including artwork etc to an exact copy of the original, and sell the copy as being indistinguishable from the original, as is the case with digital files. In Sweden, where I live, it is actually legal to purchase a CD, rip it to the computer, re-sell the CD and keep the files on the computer. But you can't keep the CD and sell the files (you don't own the right to sell the music in digital form).

And those who make a living re-selling CDs (e.g. used records shops) aren't considered pirates although they are making profit effectively depriving artists revenue because here it's more probably that a sale of a used CD is a lost sale of a full price CD... But maybe we should take that discussion also in another thread. 

And yes, you are right about the word "theft". It's an emotive issue, and although you are not taking something without the owner's permission (since the owner put it on a file share to be copied), most people know that it is wrong and does deprive the artist of revenue.

Does it always deprive the artist of revenue? What about Tasmin Little? http://www.tasminlittle.org.uk/free_cd/index.html Please answer in Marks Poll/Thread about "is file sharing theft" (is it theft to promote a different thread by the way? No!  0:) )

By the way, nice bait. I don't believe that the debate has caused guilt. I think that the guilt has either always been there or that it hasn't. It's pretty obvious without a debate that if you are getting something for free that could be bought, that you are depriving someone of something. The way to prevent the crime, is either by removing the ability to commit the crime, or by making it so risky that it's not worth it (deterrence). Sad to say that guilt is probably only a minor factor.

What about providing something that isn't free but provides better service, quality and also stuff earlier to the market compared to the free services? Would that prevent the crime? (maybe bait again)

Rikard

[eclassical]

Big question (ie bait) is what makes you think that a CD player isn't a proprietary player? I certainly thought my turntable would see me to my demise!

Because it's not designed to prevent you from listening to CDs after a certain date, or limit you in other ways? If you purchase an audio CD you must have a CD player to be able to listen to it. Any CD player, including the one in your PC. If you puchase a DRMed file, you must have a specific kind of player and as I said, DRM merits a thread and discussion of its own The difference becomes particularly obvious when the seller of the restricted file also is the seller of the particular player. It's not like Sony and Philips are the only ones selling music (only almost).

Also, the standard for CDs is published and available (you must license it though) That's why there's software burners and CD-Rs that can be used for producing audio CDs, although some players can play also e.g. EMIs copy protected CDs that violate the CD standard and aren't permitted to have the CD logo ;-)

I'm not saying that in the future people will still use the CDs for music (maybe everyone will be using FLAC), just that it isn't proprietary in the regard that you must go with one seller in order to purchase and play CDs. I agree, though, that it's just another format and that it's proprietary because you must pay Philips $242 for the PDF of the standard (PDF is in itself a proprietary format etc ad nauseam).

Heck, MP3 is a proprietary format, but it's not designed not to work on specific players and PC platforms. In this regard, Ogg Vorbis is much better, but not so widely supported. Yet.

I took the bait!
Rikard

[eclassical]

Which brings up another point: downloads are inherently at risk sitting in a computer's hard drive. When the crash comes, the music's gone.

Yes, I can back up the files...but why should I have to do such a thing? The format - the industry! - is requiring I come up with a solution to a problem that should have already been addressed by the format's chief makers.

We do like this: If the customer's hard drive or PC has crashed, we let her re-download. What does the record store do for you when you turn up with a scratched CD after two years?

But it's not fair to compare physical and digital music mediums. They are just too different

And both formats are not for everyone, agreed!

Thanks for replying

Cheers

Rikard

[Dancing Divertimentian]

We do like this: If the customer's hard drive or PC has crashed, we let her re-download.

That's very generous. Is there a limit you'd set, though? What if my entire collection of, say, 500 downloads gets wiped out? Will you replace them all? And what if my computer crashes a second time? Or a third time?

And will you be around ten years from now? Twenty? Remember, a music collection is a lifetime investment. At least mine is. The peace of mind would be essential.

Oh, and let's say I throw my computer out a window in a fit of rage. Will you cover that?

What does the record store do for you when you turn up with a scratched CD after two years?

Well, CDs can take a beating. That's one of their selling points.

But it's not fair to compare physical and digital music mediums. They are just too different

I don't see anything unfair in comparing the two mediums. They both provide the same service. Only different means. If I had never compared the LP format to the CD format I'd never have known which to choose.

[eclassical]

That's very generous. Is there a limit you'd set, though? What if my entire collection of, say, 500 downloads gets wiped out? Will you replace them all? And what if my computer crashes a second time? Or a third time?

And will you be around ten years from now? Twenty? Remember, a music collection is a lifetime investment. At least mine is. The peace of mind would be essential.

Oh, and let's say I throw my computer out a window in a fit of rage. Will you cover that?

Well, you automatically get several download occasions for each file. So in most cases we don't need to ask what has happened. And why would we care if you had thrown your PC out the window? Sounds more of a personal problem for you than a problem for us 

What we do help with, is if the customers PC crashed and the download email with the code for downloading is lost. But we don't demand that you explain why you need to download. If you need more than the several downloads you automatically get, then there's a reason for us to ask (excessive downloading of the same file), that's why there's a limit but that limit is very generous and it was well over a year since anyone surpassed that limit.

Well, CDs can take a beating. That's one of their selling points.

What I meant, admitting that it's not totally comparable, was that it's more generous to replace downloaded files that disappear than the policies for returning or replacing CDs. If your CD gets stolen or misplaced, you can't get a new copy for free. That's the nature of digital copies. It costs us next to nothing to replace a file (i.e. letting the customer re-download). It's not possible to generously replace a physical record, so it's not totally fair to compare the two. See?

I don't see anything unfair in comparing the two mediums. They both provide the same service. Only different means. If I had never compared the LP format to the CD format I'd never have known which to choose.

You can compare them, but a copy of a file is an exact copy and nearly free to make (only the cost of bandwidth). To replace a CD is a relatively costly operation. That's all I meant. So there's no reason for us to refuse the re-downloading of the files (but as of today, we have deemed it reasonable but not to do so unlimited number of times without explanation).

We may change this policy in the future, should there be demand for it. But it's not an issue today as very few people download more than our generous limit.

As we see it, the possibility to make exact copies of our files nearly for free, is an advantage over physical CDs, and that advantage should be given our customers "because we can".

Thanks for taking the time to answer!

Cheers

Rikard

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

If the MI gave me lossless downloads at an affordable price, maybe 1/3-1/2 of the original CD price, then hey, I'm on board. This would be a great service, because I need audio files but hate ripping (takes 2x speed hare).
I don't want lossy encoded stuff, simply because (example) I very often need to re-encode music files for my car (which needs a dsp applied to tune up low volumes because of the in car noise). Transcoding (lossy to lossy) is a No-No.

[Mark]

Rikard, am I right in thinking - on the topic of making 'exact' copies from files - that there is such a thing as generation loss? If, for example, I copy a file from your servers, then copy it to an MP3 player, then, perhaps, make a copy of that copy onto a hard drive at a location different to that of my home PC, aren't I steadily degrading the quality of each successive copy? Whereas, if I ripped a CD to my PC in a format and bitrate higher than offered by eclassical, then did the same directly onto my MP3 player (using the original CD as source), and finally, ripped that same CD to a spare hard drive, I'm suffering no generational loss - supposing that such exists. In this scenario, having the physical CD would be better than making multiple copies of a file, yes? I'm sure you'll argue that I could just download the file from your servers several times. But people don't do that, do they? They just make copies of copies. And if generation loss is real, then downloads are surely at a disadvantage to CDs.

[eclassical]

Rikard, am I right in thinking - on the topic of making 'exact' copies from files - that there is such a thing as generation loss? If, for example, I copy a file from your servers, then copy it to an MP3 player, then, perhaps, make a copy of that copy onto a hard drive at a location different to that of my home PC, aren't I steadily degrading the quality of each successive copy? Whereas, if I ripped a CD to my PC in a format and bitrate higher than offered by eclassical, then did the same directly onto my MP3 player (using the original CD as source), and finally, ripped that same CD to a spare hard drive, I'm suffering no generational loss - supposing that such exists. In this scenario, having the physical CD would be better than making multiple copies of a file, yes? I'm sure you'll argue that I could just download the file from your servers several times. But people don't do that, do they? They just make copies of copies. And if generation loss is real, then downloads are surely at a disadvantage to CDs.

Mark!

Au contraire. The beauty of copying files is that there is no degradation, the copies are exact copies. There is no degradation whatsoever if you just copy the file to another place, device or medium.

If you change the file format or bitrate, then there might be a loss. Going from MP3 to WAV makes no loss (the limit is the quality of the decoder). Going from MP3 to MP3 of a different bitrate would probably mean loss in quality. Going from MP3 to e.g. WMA would probably mean loss, since there will probably be a lossless intermediary which will be encoded to WMA with additional loss.

But downloading from our servers to you PC, and then to your other PC means no loss in quality. Then from your other PC to your MP3 player means no loss again. A copy of a file means exact copy unless otherwise stated.

Please let me know if you need further explanation!

Cheers

Rikard

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

Going from MP3 to e.g. WMA would probably mean loss, since there will probably be a lossless intermediary which will be encoded to WMA with additional loss.

Nitpicking and just for the records: There is also WMA lossless.

Marks question is very surprising, indeed.

[eclassical]

Nitpicking: There is also WMA lossless.

Haha, yes, but then you'd end up with a larger file which is wasting disk space

And note the word "probably" 
Rikard

[Mark]

Mark!

Au contraire. The beauty of copying files is that there is no degradation, the copies are exact copies. There is no degradation whatsoever if you just copy the file to another place, device or medium.

If you change the file format or bitrate, then there might be a loss. Going from MP3 to WAV makes no loss (the limit is the quality of the decoder). Going from MP3 to MP3 of a different bitrate would probably mean loss in quality. Going from MP3 to e.g. WMA would probably mean loss, since there will probably be a lossless intermediary which will be encoded to WMA with additional loss.

But downloading from our servers to you PC, and then to your other PC means no loss in quality. Then from your other PC to your MP3 player means no loss again. A copy of a file means exact copy unless otherwise stated.

Please let me know if you need further explanation!

Cheers

Rikard

I see. But just as a point of order, transcoding MP3 to WAV may not result in loss, but the resultant WAV won't be an exact replica of that on the original CD.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

I see. But just as a point of order, transcoding MP3 to WAV may not result in loss, but the resultant WAV won't be an exact replica of that on the original CD.

Yes of course, because the mp3 isn't a replica of the CD.

BTW, the term "transcoding" is generally used when we talk about encodings FROM lossy formats TO lossy formats. I.e. then "transcoding" is something evil, because loss is applied twice.

[Mark]

Yes of course, because the mp3 isn't a replica of the CD.

BTW, the term "transcoding" is generally used when we talk about encodings FROM lossy formats TO lossy formats. I.e. then "transcoding" is something evil, because loss is applied twice.

True. But in this example, you could still refer to it as transcoding because you're starting with a lossy format and ending up with something which, while not 'lossy' in the conventional sense of the term, still lacks all the data that comprised the source.

[eclassical]

True. But in this example, you could still refer to it as transcoding because you're starting with a lossy format and ending up with something which, while not 'lossy' in the conventional sense of the term, still lacks all the data that comprised the source.

OK, clarification:

MP3 is a lossy format. Lossy means that in order to make the file smaller than a file that is an exact replica of e.g. a music CD track, one has tossed out bits of the information representing the music, thus the "loss". I won't get into the discussion whether the loss is audible for higher bitrates used (eClassical for instance is using 192 kbps but recently changed to 320 kbps and is slowly upgrading the old catalog).

WAV (lossless, comparable to what's on an audio CD) is approx. 8 MB/minute, while MP3 320kbps is approx. 2 MB/minute so it's four times smaller (roughly).
FLAC is also lossless, but cleverly compressed anyway, almost half the size of WAV but exactly the same quality as WAV/CD.

So, MP3, being lossy, is not an exact copy of the sound information from the original CD. But a copy of an MP3 file, is implicitly an exact copy of the original MP3 file. There is no additional tossing out information in the process of downloading or otherwise copying the file.

In fact, playing an MP3 file on a computer involves copying the original file from the hard drive to the RAM memory (for processing and relaying to the sound board).

For a discussion of bitrates, please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Bit_rate

Rikard

[Mark]

OK, clarification:

MP3 is a lossy format. Lossy means that in order to make the file smaller than a file that is an exact replica of e.g. a music CD track, one has tossed out bits of the information representing the music, thus the "loss". I won't get into the discussion whether the loss is audible for higher bitrates used (eClassical for instance is using 192 kbps but recently changed to 320 kbps and is slowly upgrading the old catalog).

WAV (lossless, comparable to what's on an audio CD) is approx. 8 MB/minute, while MP3 320kbps is approx. 2 MB/minute so it's four times smaller (roughly).
FLAC is also lossless, but cleverly compressed anyway, almost half the size of WAV but exactly the same quality as WAV/CD.

So, MP3, being lossy, is not an exact copy of the sound information from the original CD. But a copy of an MP3 file, is implicitly an exact copy of the original MP3 file. There is no additional tossing out information in the process of downloading or otherwise copying the file.

In fact, playing an MP3 file on a computer involves copying the original file from the hard drive to the RAM memory (for processing and relaying to the sound board).

For a discussion of bitrates, please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Bit_rate

Rikard

While you're teaching me nothing new here, that's certainly a nice, clear explanation for others. Doesn't change the fact that, unless you download FLAC or other lossless format, you're still sacrificing quality for size, convenience, etc. Not that I care - I download a lot, including VBR MP3 (i.e. everything over at eMusic). But some will still see the loss of digital data, liner notes and just the physicality of holding a CD and its case as a reason to avoid buying downloads.

A possible 'way in' for those considering entering the world of downloads might be to offer a service whereby, when one buys a physical CD, they can insert this into their PC, and it links through to a site where high-quality downloads of the same content are ready and waiting for them. Why go to such lengths when they could just rip at home? It makes some people nervous - all that 'technology', however simple to some, scares others. And then there's the inevitable crap job that so many download providers make of tagging. But if all this was done for the customer, and they didn't need to rip the content from their own disc, it might be a first step for those who are unsure. From there, they could build confidence to make their own rips - and buy from more download-only stores.