Shao Feng-Li (post: 1188674) wrote:And you're giving them ideas
Say bye-bye to radio XD
Tyrel (post: 1188710) wrote:See... This is exactly why I hate Ipods. I buy CD's, I still carry around a portable CD player, I rip the music to my computer and back it up twice on my external. I have avoided the stupidity of MP3 players because this is exactly what I thought would happen. People are just going to use it as an excuse to download everything. It makes the whole process so much more tempting, and once downloaded, only a few will go back and pay for a CD they can't even use.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....
I hate MP3 players for this reason.
ok.. rant over.. Instead of just downloading all your music because of what one distributer is doing, just bloody buy the CD's and ignore the stupidity of Ipod.
25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.
Tyrel (post: 1188710) wrote:25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.
Cognitive Gear (post: 1188719) wrote::eh:
Perhaps not for you, but in my mind, it is.
I assume the typical 1$ a song (as per digital pricing) + the cost of manufacturing is around 10-15$, depending on the CD. Which is exactly what I intend to pay. I buy CDs all the time. Not once have I spent 25$ on a CD that did not include physical extras. It seems absurd to me to pay more, unless the excess were to go directly to the band itself.
Secondly, I don't believe that iPods made the process any more tempting. Considering that you have been able to just burn the music to CDs of your own for years now anyways. Besides, iTunes is so integrated into iPod that many people are switching over to legal downloads anyways.
Tyrel wrote:25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.
Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1188717) wrote:So wait... you hate mp3 players... why? (Technically they are not called mp3 players because mp3 is just an audio format, and many digital media players can other alternate audio files like .wma, mpeg, .aac, .ogg, etc) I mean they're a good technological advancement. They have the capacity to hold like 100 times the amount a regular CD can hold. Besides, what's not stopping you from using a CD-RW to use downloaded/ripped mp3 files then playing them on your Portable CD player?
25 dollars for a CD is unreasonable. CDs themselves cost like less than 10 cents. 25 dollars for copies of the songs that may be on a cd are probably worth more depending on your tastes in music, however. There is no difference between buying songs online and buying songs. In the end, you're still paying for a copy of the song.
Radical Dreamer (post: 1188726) wrote:I pay anywhere from 9-13 dollars for a CD from Best Buy. I pay $16 at MOST from other stores.
$25 is WAY too much for a CD. XD
Tyrel wrote:Ok ok, I suppose $25 is a bit of a strain for most people. With Tax, what would you say to a $20?
For me, I work at a place where I can get the CD's for a good price, and I purposely always pay at least $20 per CD, unless the sale price is something like $5.
Radical Dreamer (post: 1188735) wrote:I actually just realized your location says you're in Canada. XD And now I'm curious as to the exchange rates. While you're paying 20, it might be that those of us in the US are paying 9-13, like I suggested. If that's the case, then my last post is almost moot, except I still wouldn't pay $25 for a CD. XDD Then again, most CDs I buy are from indie bands and less mainstream music, so that could have something to do with it as well.
Tyrel (post: 1188730) wrote:Ok ok, I suppose $25 is a bit of a strain for most people. With Tax, what would you say to a $20?
For me, I work at a place where I can get the CD's for a good price, and I purposely always pay at least $20 per CD, unless the sale price is something like $5.
Tyrel (post: 1188727) wrote:No, the money is to supply the artists and the label with their due, so that they can continue to grow, and stay on the scene.
Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1188763) wrote:Eh, you're kind of wrong there. The money you spend for CDs don't go to the artist at all, well... maybe like 10% of it does. It actually goes to the record company. Buying CDs doesn't help the artist out that much. It's their contract with the record company that does, and the record company makes tenfold of what they offer to the artists. So the whole "By cds to support the industry!" isn't as black and white as you may think.
Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1188762) wrote:For a single CD with maybe twelve tracks, three of which I might listen to? Yeah, twenty bucks is too much. I'll pay the money on bands that I like (Muse! Dream Theater!) but I won't pay twenty smackers for something I'm not even sure I'll like. Even with the abbility to sample songs in store I've still come home too many times recently with CDs I ended up hating. I'd rather pay the 99 cents on iTunes and call it good. besides which, I do more than put them on my iPod. I too have a big thing of CDs that I keep with me... Many of them are just burned CDs.
Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1188763) wrote:Eh, you're kind of wrong there. The money you spend for CDs don't go to the artist at all, well... maybe like 10% of it does. It actually goes to the record company. Buying CDs doesn't help the artist out that much. It's their contract with the record company that does, and the record company makes tenfold of what they offer to the artists. So the whole "By cds to support the industry!" isn't as black and white as you may think.
It's a shame, really. It's a shame that artists can't get the money they deserve because record companies like to reap the benefits.
It's the same with videogame publishers. Some game company like Bungie or Infinity Ward releases an extremely popular game, but it's Microsoft and Activision that get all the profits, not the developers. I feel much more content buying music or a game if I know that my money is going to the artist or developers rather than some greedy middle-man.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests