legal downloads how much would you pay ?

It depends on several factors:

- which quality? 128kbit, 192kbit, 256kbit ... lossless
- If DRM is used, can the files be burnt to CD?
- If DRM is used, what happens when I lose the files (do I have to pay again to download them)

Generally I will not pay more than 1/3 of the price of the real CD if it's a lossy format ... something in a range between $3 and $5, I guess.

I`ll settle for 192 kbit  mp3`s  (no lower)    but I prefer >>  OGG'S TO Mp3`s I think I can detect a slight difference in the stereo separation  and  dynamics    OGG'S  are available at mindawn  and are easy to burn using Winamp or any other decent burning software


Edited by Masque - February 16 2007 at 10:08

MikeEnRegalia wrote:  ^ unfortunately OGG isn't supported by all portable players. And poperly encoded mp3 is almost as good ... have you tried emusic.com?

  taking a look now  :-)  

I refuse to pay to download music. I would only pay for a physical item. Maybe the music industry should let people listen to free samples of tracks? As it is I illegally download then if I like I buy.

I don't download music and I definitely wouldn't pay anything for downloads. I want to have the album in my collection, and albums consist of both the music and the package.

Don't download music

SolariS wrote: Downloading music sucks. I love being able to browse used cd's and finding a total gem at a steal of a price. With music downloads, there's no used market and you have nothing to sell if you decide you don't want an album. You can't go to a garage sale and look through someone's old music collection. You can't leaf through the pages of the booklet while you listen to the music. You can't have a collection of albums for your friends to look through and spin in your cd player when you're hanging out. If your computer crashes, you lose all of your music. Does homeowners insurance cover that? You can't store music in the compression format of your choice without transcoding. You can't give an album to your friend to borrow without breaking license agreements. Do I need to go on... It's not for me. I'll only switch to downloads when I have no other choice.

^If I want to listen to an album (a one that I don't necessarily want to have in my collection), I can usually get it from the library, so I don't have to pay anything to download it.

My big difficulty with the legal download sites  is that their prices are uniform. Is there really any justification for paying as much for a 1973 Foghat or Genesis song as a brand new release from Porcupine Tree or Rush ? The record industry agrees that there should be a price differential. As per their standard thinking, they would ask MORE for the newer stuff & keep the same prices on the old stuff. They stumbled & turned off fans for years with their lawsuits & copycat bands, & they still don't have a clue. Why not put the whole back catalogue out at a lower price ? It would be a one-time capital cost, then they could make their money back over time. Wouldn't you just love to be able to get that May Blitz debut for $10 ? It would certainly make it's price more reasonable than the collectors' market. How many artists do you read about on this site, that for a "sane " price, you'd be interested in acquiring ? And now we see back catalogue  CDs  readily available at major chains at a price of 2 for $12. Oh well, as things progress & artists have alternate means of promotion, maybe we will come to the day that all bands can offer their music directly to the public at a price of their choosing, or even free, if that what suits them. 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Why are you guys so extreme? I mean, it's not like there's no in between. Each month I download a dozen albums and buy 1-5 "real" albums that I really, really like. And in addition to that I listen to 20 albums more on Napster. Where's the problem? My (non-virtual) collection is still growing nicely, and I'm not spending much more on music that I spent before these downloads were possible - but I'm listening to twice as many albums!