as much as i can't stand the riaa and all that they stand for...i'm beginning to be creeped out a little by the attitude that everything is free.

i had this discussion with my stepson (who just came back from college for the weekend):

him: i need a new hard drive.

me: why? somethin' wrong with it?

him: no. it's full.

me: ah, full of mp3's you mean?

him: yeah?

i then suggest that he should put some stuff on cd to clear out some space.

nothin' doing. you can 'only' put 10-15 songs or so on an audio cd.

what this all gets down to is convenience.

there are lots of folks (kids only? dunno) who are more than happy to just play random mp3's from their hard drive...because picking out a cd and sticking it in the player is 'a pain'...even though they know (and the stepson admits to this) that the mp3's sound like crap.

and this is skipping the larger and somewhat separate issue of not paying for anything. ever. my stepson doesn't do this, but he has plenty of friends who do.

it's a little disturbing.

What makes music different?

"I guess I don't put as high a value on it," said Philips . . .

Expressing a common view, she said music was "more of a background thing," providing flavor to her day but not a focus. As a result, she said, it's "something that doesn't feel quite as tangible" as a movie.

The difference for people seems to be that music doesn't require your full attention - it exists on a continuum of concentration from almost none to full, whereas you are basically either watching a movie or you aren't. I know I use music differently at different times and I don't think this is necessarily disrespectful of music, just the way it is, and the way it has been since the invention of the phonograph and especially the radio. This is just another step down the path to ubiquitous music.

While I fully support the needs of creators to be paid for their work, I also see how far down tis conceptual road we are and believe that treating digital music more like a utility (water, electricity) is the only way to assure revenue from distribution (as opposed to performing, merchandising, sponsorships, radio/TV/film play) is some kind of blanket licensing tha feels like free to the user.

This article struck me mainly because of the stated difference between movies and music. Why the difference? Here's one idea that seems to tie in nicely with the statement that music is more of a background thing:

Movie producers don't give away their movies for free.

To watch a movie, you must pay. Whether you pay at a theater or for a DVD, or maybe someone else pays for your ticket or DVD, money has been exchanged every time someone watches a movie. (Don't be nit-picky.) On the other hand, music producers are constantly giving their music away. On the radio and on television we hear the songs over and over and over. Why do we (some of us, anyway) still buy CDs? For convenience, quality and control. Since free downloads provide two out of three, many people obviously go for it.

Music producers shouldn't be so surprised that people don't value music. By paying radio stations to play their tunes, they've been devaluing it for years.

Excellent point Phillip - the process has been underway ever since music could be played without someone actually having to play it (ie the phonograph).

Really, what have the RIAA member companies been trying to sell us? It isn't the music, because that's free - just turn on a radio. (Yes, I know that there are commercial sponsors.) The obvious conclusion is that we are being charged for the differences between listening to music on the radio and listening to music on CD. And the differences are:

1. Quality
   So the lower quality of MP3s is no big deal to many people. It's still better than radio!
2. Media
   By playing the stuff on the radio (and everywhere else), it has become clear that the cost to the producers is low enough that they don't have to worry about every play of every song. By charging so much more for CDs than cassettes or vinyl (not any more, but back in the day), it was made clear that the cost is in the shiny silver disc.

And so once one makes their own shiny silver disc, using material from the radio (or equivalent), what's the beef?

At least, that's the reasoning. I've got stacks and stacks and stacks of CDs that says I disagree, mostly. :)

I honestly do agree with people who feel that music is different from something tangible that many people can physically steal. The whole idea that you can turn on a radio and tape everything you hear and play it over and over again and even make copies of the tape for your friends was the original impetus for file sharing music. People have been sharing their favorite mixes and or just songs since cassettes or even 8 tracks became ubiquitous. The same idea translates to videotapes. The RIAA complained bitterly about this at one time but it eventually died down once people were able to capitalize off of the cassetete/video formats to the degree where those who bought media through these formats outweighed those who did it illegally.

Music is very different from a tangible product because it is so easily obtained from the radio where it actually is broadcast for free as far as the listener is concerned. The only problem with the radio is the horrible program managers who select what is and isnt played and their monopolistic control over what people have access to. I think that overall people love music yet what they love as much as the music itself is the ability to listen to what they want when they want . I dont think Gen X'ers like myself have become addicted to stealing music. I think we grew up taping the songs off the radio and now see the internet as another way to record what we like. If they charged a reasonable price and let me do what I want with my music as far as my mp3 player, car stereo, home stereo etc. I would gladly pay them. Until then I see them as a child trying to stop the dam from breaking by sticking their finger in the leak.

CJ, thanks for your thoughts, bro - I think you represent about 50 million people or so.

One thing about the movie industry is the home platforms haven't changed quite as quickly and the likelihood that folks are repurchasing damaged media is therefore smaller. As far as home users go, there was vhs/beta and laserdisc that really only caught on with high end users and now there are DVDs.

But if you talk about the same time period with music you have records, 8-track, tapes, CD and now mp3/digital downloads. How many folks here have bought the same music on multiple platforms?

I have.

Enough is enough! There should be a single license when I buy an album or single track and for the rest of my life I should be able to retrieve that same title no matter where I want to listen to it at or from.

I think at least older consumers are fed up with the hamster wheel that is buying essentially the same thing, over and over and over and the downloading environment offers them a chance to access material they may have paid for in the past or can no longer access (like badly scratched vinyl or unplayable 8-tracks or cassette).

I've bought movies on both VHS and now DVD, too. I may have spent as much money on that as on replacing music, but maybe not.

back to what tom said:

"This is what makes me so sad about this. It's not just that people are stealing music, but that music has become such a meaningless thing to people that it doesn't even warrant paying for anymore. One could argue, however, that it's the quality of music today that causes people to have such a low view of music's importance in their lives. If anything, music should be more "tangible" than movies because how often can you watch movies? Can't do it while driving (or shouldn't), can't do it at work, or jogging/biking/etc., can't do it while doing other things. Music is the best portable entertainment, and it's more than worth paying for."

i guess what bothers me (i do have to think this out a little more) is the difference between how full-on downloaders view this material and how i viewed it as a kid (and still do).

very often i would bring home a new recording. put the thing on and read the liner notes/lyrics while the music played. i wanted to know who played which instument, backing vocals on a particular track, etc.

now of course, this kind of info is certainly available today...but the whole download only thing seems to push it into the background.

the cause? there are many....all pointing at our rapidly shrinking attention span (that's my theory, anyway)

Mark, as you probably know, with ID3 tags embedded in mp3 you can get all that, including cover arts, lyrics, etc. It's a shame that more folks don't fully fill out and use those tags.

yea, i know about that stuff.

it's not the same though.

i guess someone who's looking to make a connection with a group they're a fan of will do so...it just seems like nobody's interested anymore.

that disconnection is what disturbs me.

Mark, on the one hand, yes, I lament the loss of the liner note experience. It has been replaced by an obnoxious effort to remove an unnecessary number of stickers from a tiny case, a slightly broken case at least 20% of the time, and microscopic liner notes thrown together by someone who obviously doesn't care all that much. To be fair, some of them might care, but the budget of time and money is likely miniscule.

On the other hand, we have wonderful websites for our favorite artists and bands where we can find out all of the missing details and much more, including connecting with other fans.

And the internet that enabled the good also contributed directly to the bad. Sigh.

File sharing has opened the door for people who look for that one song that they love by that certain artist. It's helped many out by finding certain songs, versus purchasing a 15, 16, sometimes 20 dollars or more CD that is basically a bunch of garbage. For instance, I like "Beautiful Stranger" by Madonna, but in my opinion the CD is terrible. There's others that view other CD's differently, but for me downloading a couple songs from her previous albums help me in deciding whether or not to purchase them or not. Who's with me on this?

The real victims are the Artists right. Well they do not look to victimized by me. They still make well more than I will ever make. They make money on concerts, shirts, and other sources also. In fact they probable make more money when people download their songs. It creates fans they probable wouldn't have had otherwise. I think they should just look the other way or even make some of there songs available for download from their websites to encourage people to buy the cd or come to their concerts. Music is art and art should be for art's sake.