PDA

View Full Version : Pay to listen



dancj
04-12-2007, 05:18 AM
Steven the idea you talked about in your column of paying based on how many times you listen to music isn't a bad one (in theory). It'd be like CDs only you pay based on how much you actually like an album.

That works for me.

The only two problems are:
1 - it's impossible to police. If I put music on my pda then are they really going to be able to track how many times I listen to it and charge me accordingly? If they do it's almost certainly going to be in some restrictive way that really annoys me. Even worse if I want to burn it onto CD

2 - you just know they're going to overcharge. It should be something like 1p per song (or per 5 minutes) per listen. That way if you like an album then by the time you've listened to it 10-20 times you'll have paid a couple of quid, which if enough people do it is going to bring in a nice profit.

Needless to say the reason that I don't pay to download music is that it's hideously overpriced. iTunes charges 8 for an album, which is about what I pay for CDs anyway, and a CD is a permanent physical object with a smart cover that I can take anywhere. If they brought the price down to a couple of quid per album then I'd quite likely give up using bittorrent for music

FunkyGreenJerusalem
04-12-2007, 05:32 AM
Steven the idea you talked about in your column of paying based on how many times you listen to music isn't a bad one (in theory). It'd be like CDs only you pay based on how much you actually like an album.

That works for me.

The only two problems are:
1 - it's impossible to police. If I put music on my pda then are they really going to be able to track how many times I listen to it and charge me accordingly? If they do it's almost certainly going to be in some restrictive way that really annoys me. Even worse if I want to burn it onto CD

2 - you just know they're going to overcharge. It should be something like 1p per song (or per 5 minutes) per listen. That way if you like an album then by the time you've listened to it 10-20 times you'll have paid a couple of quid, which if enough people do it is going to bring in a nice profit.

Needless to say the reason that I don't pay to download music is that it's hideously overpriced. iTunes charges 8 for an album, which is about what I pay for CDs anyway, and a CD is a permanent physical object with a smart cover that I can take anywhere. If they brought the price down to a couple of quid per album then I'd quite likely give up using bittorrent for music

But why should you have to buy a CD if before you could've just brought the music online?
Forcing people to buy the product backwards isn't going to work for anyone.

Rattlehead
04-12-2007, 08:13 AM
If I'm not going to get an actual tangible, physical object out of something, I'm not paying for it. It's as simple as that for me. I would rather hunt around on eBay for the CD or comic Book that I'm looking for at a discounted price than pay for something digitally. Plus, I don't have the internet at home, I don't even have a computer at home beyond a horribly dated Compaq, so what good would Digital Comics do for me? Nothing at all, that's what. Believe it or not, not everyone can afford broadband Net access.

Steven Grant
04-12-2007, 10:49 AM
Steven the idea you talked about in your column of paying based on how many times you listen to music isn't a bad one (in theory). It'd be like CDs only you pay based on how much you actually like an album.

Um... it was meant to be a warning, not a suggestion. As a suggestion, it's terrible.

- Grant

outlander78
04-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Um... it was meant to be a warning, not a suggestion. As a suggestion, it's terrible.

- Grant

Phew - glad to hear it.

dancj
04-13-2007, 05:17 AM
But why should you have to buy a CD if before you could've just brought the music online?
I shouldn't have to, but I prefer to because I prefer to have a tangible object that I won't lose through a hard drive crash. I like to have something I can take with me anywhere without having to boot up my computer and copy it onto my PDA and then find another computer to copy it back off my PDA wherever I'm going to.


Forcing people to buy the product backwards isn't going to work for anyone.
I'm not sure what you mean by "buy the product backwards"

dancj
04-13-2007, 05:19 AM
Um... it was meant to be a warning, not a suggestion. As a suggestion, it's terrible.
I realised it was a warning. I don't think it's workable, but I think the idea isn't completely without merit.

plainbrownwraper
04-13-2007, 09:29 AM
It's simple really, ASCAP will simply install a microprocessor in your skull, which will count incidences of media you happen to be exposed to, communicate this to a central server, and bill you accordingly.

If you refuse to pay, a looped medley of Barry Manilow songs will be broadcast directly into your skull 24 hours a day - though many will opt for the alternative, a small explosive charge that will (relatively) quickly and (mostly) painlessly sever your spinal cord.

founder81
04-13-2007, 11:29 AM
Didn't the movie industry try something similar years back.

I forget what it was called, but you'd buy the disc and could watch it as many times as you wanted within 24 hours. After that you had to purchase a code to "unlock" the movie. It was called something like Divx.

mattx110
04-13-2007, 12:00 PM
I realised it was a warning. I don't think it's workable, but I think the idea isn't completely without merit.

tell that to a music teacher.
his career revolves around being able to listen to a piece of music a million times and understand it.
anyway, i can't be itunes exclusive because not everything is on itunes. anything released in another country is pretty much absent, even if t's an american artist.
itunes is a terrific way to accidentily spend 100 bucks in one night in 5 minutes, but oddly enough CD distribution is better than internet distribution (involving rights and reproduction rather than traditional distribution) for now.

but there is no possible way charging someone for how much they listen to something can work. i'd be so incredibly in debt it would just be sad. i'm not holding up a "will work for music recordings" sign when i'm homeless.

FunkyGreenJerusalem
04-13-2007, 11:11 PM
I shouldn't have to, but I prefer to because I prefer to have a tangible object that I won't lose through a hard drive crash. I like to have something I can take with me anywhere without having to boot up my computer and copy it onto my PDA and then find another computer to copy it back off my PDA wherever I'm going to.

But others really like the lack of clutter of not having to store hundreds of CD's.
If we have the technology, why should they be forced to keep CD's around - because if they download an album they have to pay each time they listen?

It's absurd.



I'm not sure what you mean by "buy the product backwards"

Paying to listen then having to go buy a physical copy, instead of just being able to download one.

Toreador
04-13-2007, 11:30 PM
Why don't they have a set-up similar to program downloads. When you buy a downloadable album you also receive a hard copy in the mail (or just pay a few dollars more for a hard copy). Same could be done for singles, when you buy enough songs from Itunes or somewhere else to fill a cd a hard copy can be sent to you. That way you'd have a back-up in case of hard drive failure or you want to lend it to someone that doesn't have an mp3 player yet. [I think of heard of a program like this before but something must have happened to it]

The reverse could also work. When you buy a cd it could contain an access code to a website containing the songs in case the cd gets damaged and you need to get a copy of the cd without having to buy the album again. One unique code per cd to prevent thousands of people using the code to get the songs and create an internet music library for yourself.

Steven Grant
04-14-2007, 10:29 AM
Mainly because the idea of DRM isn't to make it convenient for you to enjoy the music you want to hear, it's for them to make every cent conceivable from the music you hear, even if officially it's just to protect their interest in the music you hear. At any rate, the consumer's convenience and ability to listen to the music they purchase isn't a primary concern.

- Grant

Perry Holley
04-14-2007, 10:38 AM
Didn't the movie industry try something similar years back.I seem to recall Disney was big on the idea.

MartinRedmond
04-16-2007, 10:04 AM
I don't pay for MP3s. Certainly not at 128kbps with instruments compressed and sound effects missing.

dancj
04-19-2007, 06:05 AM
But others really like the lack of clutter of not having to store hundreds of CD's.
If we have the technology, why should they be forced to keep CD's around - because if they download an album they have to pay each time they listen?

It's absurd.

Paying to listen then having to go buy a physical copy, instead of just being able to download one.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I was saying anything along those lines.