Cheap music download sites
-
Indivara wrote:
don't expect us poor non-USians to pay through the nose?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I love a good music industry joke in the morning! What? You were serious? Ah. The music industry is a business. Where fat talentless men in suits make massive profits and feed a small percentage of those (and they will feed as small a percentage as they can) to the talented people (and Simon Cowell artists as well) who make music (or don't in the case of Simon Cowell artists) They do this by charging prices which are completely unrelated to the cost of production, as they have done since the vinyl days, and being extremely litigious with anyone who tries to avoid their monopolistic hold on the market. Hence the setup in countries where the copyright legislation may be...um...looser than music industry executives would like. I am not pro music theft, I'm not an advocate of piracy. But the music (and movie) industry do take the Michael to a large extent in order to support their excessive profits.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
So the artists get peanuts, no matter how their music is sold? There were comments on various site about how the Russian sites were ripping off artists, but they actually rip off a bunch of middle-men?
-
So the artists get peanuts, no matter how their music is sold? There were comments on various site about how the Russian sites were ripping off artists, but they actually rip off a bunch of middle-men?
They don't get peanuts - some of them become extremely rich - just that the percentage they get is peanuts compared to that kept by the middlemen.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
Since iTunes and the like want the equivalent of around $2.50 per track, I've been looking around for more inexpensive options. Napster (Rhapsody) is not available here, but there was one other site (and I'm sure there are more) which offers tracks at 10 cents. It sounds too good to be true, are these sites really legal? Their site has the following statements:
Legality and security note Q: Is your web site legal? A: Yes, the activity of [site] is carried out according to the legislation of the license agreement # [number] of the Ukrainian Public Organization "[name]" issued for [company]. Service [site] pays full-scale author's royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited. Q: If your web site is legal, why your prices are so low? A: Our Company is registered outside US area to minimize the taxation. Also, we can offer such low prices due to guaranteed bulk purchases (minimum deposit on our web site is 15 USD).
Still sounds a bit shady, $15 hardly counts as a "bulk" purchase, and if what they say about paying "full-scale author's royalties" is true, then the artist couldn't get more than a cent or two per track (which seems insufficient to make a living). Aren't there any sites that are really legal, and don't expect us poor non-USians to pay through the nose?
I know Russia (and presume Ukraine is doing the same) has a compulsory licensing law on the books that allows local companies to sell foreign music for pennies on the dollar compared to what the standard industry rate is on a take it or leave it but we're going to sell regardless. All the major music labels have responded with the lawyerly equivalent of FOAD. I'm not sure whether they're doing so because consenting would set a dangerous precedent; or because if consenting would make it legal for them to sell globally at the cutrate prices. In any event outside of the countries they're operating in those sites are of dubious legality (although AFAIK nothing has been done to people using them); and the actual artists are seeing no more money from your purchase than if you just warezed the songs in the first place.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
Since iTunes and the like want the equivalent of around $2.50 per track, I've been looking around for more inexpensive options. Napster (Rhapsody) is not available here, but there was one other site (and I'm sure there are more) which offers tracks at 10 cents. It sounds too good to be true, are these sites really legal? Their site has the following statements:
Legality and security note Q: Is your web site legal? A: Yes, the activity of [site] is carried out according to the legislation of the license agreement # [number] of the Ukrainian Public Organization "[name]" issued for [company]. Service [site] pays full-scale author's royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited. Q: If your web site is legal, why your prices are so low? A: Our Company is registered outside US area to minimize the taxation. Also, we can offer such low prices due to guaranteed bulk purchases (minimum deposit on our web site is 15 USD).
Still sounds a bit shady, $15 hardly counts as a "bulk" purchase, and if what they say about paying "full-scale author's royalties" is true, then the artist couldn't get more than a cent or two per track (which seems insufficient to make a living). Aren't there any sites that are really legal, and don't expect us poor non-USians to pay through the nose?
Indivara wrote:
there was one other site which offers tracks at 10 cents
Indivara wrote:
$15 hardly counts as a "bulk"
150 songs or roughly 10 albums by my estimate. How much music would you consider to be a bulk purchase?
Make it work. Then do it better - Andrei Straut
-
They don't get peanuts - some of them become extremely rich - just that the percentage they get is peanuts compared to that kept by the middlemen.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
You're right. Most of them don't get peanuts. They end up in debt to the record company, which is negative peanuts. Most of the people you think of as getting extremely rich (if in fact they are, many live way beyond their means) make the bulk of their money through concerts and other such revenue. Percentage points on a recording contract are extremely low and you wouldn't believe the nickel & dime offsets and shady accounting practices that nullify even that. Even before the massive piracy of the Internet, the major benefit of record sales was to boost concert attendance, something for which the artist has at least a fighting chance of being paid. When you sign a record contract, you're given an advance (loan) against revenue. Then you record the album and make the video, which can easily run from 500k to 7 figures. They don't pay for that. The artist does. It's considered an advance, which you have to pay back out of your royalties and (if you even get any) points on sales. The number of artists who even break even on that can be measured with a teaspoon. The image of rich rock stars is used by the ethically challenged as justification for them taking music they don't pay for (aka stealing). Justification is something humans do to feel better about themselves when they know what they're doing is wrong. I commend the OP for his quest to pay for music. Any programmer waving the "music should be free" banner should either stop accepting pay for writing code or sit down and be quiet. (And that wasn't a poke at you personally, just a generalization.)
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
-
Indivara wrote:
don't expect us poor non-USians to pay through the nose?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I love a good music industry joke in the morning! What? You were serious? Ah. The music industry is a business. Where fat talentless men in suits make massive profits and feed a small percentage of those (and they will feed as small a percentage as they can) to the talented people (and Simon Cowell artists as well) who make music (or don't in the case of Simon Cowell artists) They do this by charging prices which are completely unrelated to the cost of production, as they have done since the vinyl days, and being extremely litigious with anyone who tries to avoid their monopolistic hold on the market. Hence the setup in countries where the copyright legislation may be...um...looser than music industry executives would like. I am not pro music theft, I'm not an advocate of piracy. But the music (and movie) industry do take the Michael to a large extent in order to support their excessive profits.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
At least you know who the villains are. I read in an industry trade rag that one of the Harry Potter movies (half blood prince, I think) grossed just short of a billion dollars. (That's billion with a B for all you Kelsey Grammar fans). Rowling got a percentage of the "profits" on the movie. After Hollywood Accounting, guess how much profit that movie generated? Yep. Zero. There's only one word that matters in the phrase show business.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
-
You're right. Most of them don't get peanuts. They end up in debt to the record company, which is negative peanuts. Most of the people you think of as getting extremely rich (if in fact they are, many live way beyond their means) make the bulk of their money through concerts and other such revenue. Percentage points on a recording contract are extremely low and you wouldn't believe the nickel & dime offsets and shady accounting practices that nullify even that. Even before the massive piracy of the Internet, the major benefit of record sales was to boost concert attendance, something for which the artist has at least a fighting chance of being paid. When you sign a record contract, you're given an advance (loan) against revenue. Then you record the album and make the video, which can easily run from 500k to 7 figures. They don't pay for that. The artist does. It's considered an advance, which you have to pay back out of your royalties and (if you even get any) points on sales. The number of artists who even break even on that can be measured with a teaspoon. The image of rich rock stars is used by the ethically challenged as justification for them taking music they don't pay for (aka stealing). Justification is something humans do to feel better about themselves when they know what they're doing is wrong. I commend the OP for his quest to pay for music. Any programmer waving the "music should be free" banner should either stop accepting pay for writing code or sit down and be quiet. (And that wasn't a poke at you personally, just a generalization.)
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Any programmer waving the "music should be free" banner should either stop accepting pay for writing code or sit down and be quiet.
I agree. But the music industry could do a lot to control it. If they stopped taking the huge rake-off they do, ceased all the shady practices, hang Simon Cowell from the lamp post and priced music at a more sensible level, a heck of a lot of the incentive to steal it via the internet would dry up. Which would have to be good for music in the long run. They would probably even gross the same amount. Not going to happen though.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Any programmer waving the "music should be free" banner should either stop accepting pay for writing code or sit down and be quiet.
I agree. But the music industry could do a lot to control it. If they stopped taking the huge rake-off they do, ceased all the shady practices, hang Simon Cowell from the lamp post and priced music at a more sensible level, a heck of a lot of the incentive to steal it via the internet would dry up. Which would have to be good for music in the long run. They would probably even gross the same amount. Not going to happen though.
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
Honestly, if songs were one cent instead of a dollar, I doubt it would affect the piracy numbers. The kind of people who steal aren't likely to pay at any price. They steal because they can. If they couldn't get away with it, they'd just do without the music. Actually, upon reflection, that's partially wrong. Back in the days before the web, if you wanted to take 1000 songs without paying, you had to steal CDs or vinyl from a record store and risk going to jail. Consequently, peoeple paid, even though they had to spend 15 bucks for the entire CD instead of 99 cents for the one song they really wanted. People steal music because they can get away with it. Price isn't a factor. As an aside, if you really want to know what humanity is like, just look at the results of the anonymous nature of the Internet. The trolls, the black hat hackers, the intellectual property theft - this is how people would behave in the real world if their actions had no consequences.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer Enjoy comedy? Watch Talking Head Games (SFW)
-
Since iTunes and the like want the equivalent of around $2.50 per track, I've been looking around for more inexpensive options. Napster (Rhapsody) is not available here, but there was one other site (and I'm sure there are more) which offers tracks at 10 cents. It sounds too good to be true, are these sites really legal? Their site has the following statements:
Legality and security note Q: Is your web site legal? A: Yes, the activity of [site] is carried out according to the legislation of the license agreement # [number] of the Ukrainian Public Organization "[name]" issued for [company]. Service [site] pays full-scale author's royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited. Q: If your web site is legal, why your prices are so low? A: Our Company is registered outside US area to minimize the taxation. Also, we can offer such low prices due to guaranteed bulk purchases (minimum deposit on our web site is 15 USD).
Still sounds a bit shady, $15 hardly counts as a "bulk" purchase, and if what they say about paying "full-scale author's royalties" is true, then the artist couldn't get more than a cent or two per track (which seems insufficient to make a living). Aren't there any sites that are really legal, and don't expect us poor non-USians to pay through the nose?
I don't see any answers to your question here. can you give the site list you have got so far?
Regards, Jwalant Natvarlal Soneji http://jwalantsoneji.com[^]
-
I don't see any answers to your question here. can you give the site list you have got so far?
Regards, Jwalant Natvarlal Soneji http://jwalantsoneji.com[^]
-
Indivara wrote:
there was one other site which offers tracks at 10 cents
Indivara wrote:
$15 hardly counts as a "bulk"
150 songs or roughly 10 albums by my estimate. How much music would you consider to be a bulk purchase?
Make it work. Then do it better - Andrei Straut
