Here in Brazil is very hard to find even classic albums of classic prog groups. When I can find them, I buy, and sometimes import from e-stores like Amazon. But their price is very, very high, and now I start downloading and sharing my music files with other guys.

What do you think about this way of getting information about an artist? Do you realy believe in the corporations' theory that you are stealing the artist that you are supposed to love? Since you don't sell or have any form of personal profit, I don't think this is wrong, mainly because I buy the original product when I can find it with a reasonable price. Please post your comments.

I think downloading and sharing is fine as long as you buy the album when you can.

norbert88

 I download some stuff and usually I end up buying ALL of the artists back-catalogue as I am a bit obsessive like that so I personally don't think its harming the artist in this situation, where it leads to a purchase.

However, I read a recent intervew by Nick Barrett of Pendragon on the DRPR site  who was understandably very annoyed when his recent album had been copied/downloaded. He made the point that if people don't buy the album then its like stealing from the artist. At the end of the day, the artist needs some income in order to keep on producing albums. If they don't get income - we don't get any more of their music. We lose out in the end as much as the artist.

^^

yes I like to have the lyrics, look at the artwork , read who played what etc and all that sort of stuff

Yes, moodyxadi, I suspect the situation in Brazil is closer to that in Malaysia ... when I want to get an original album by a classic prog band ... I have to order it and pay at least double the price of what pop fans pay for the latest Britney Spears ...  

I'm in a very lucky position as CD reviewer ... with over 3,000 original CDs I have a larger collection of 60s and 70s rock than any given store in Malaysia or neighbouring Singapore ...  but it's still extraordinarily frustrating ... I've never even seen an original prog CD by a South American, Spanish or Quebocois band ... and most of my exciting purchases happen from bargain bins on a rare overseas trip ...

I certainly hate the thought of depriving prog musicians of their cash though ... 

So this is a real dilemma, especially for markets like mine where all but the most popular bands aren't available domestically.

i think i can understand moodyxadi point of view. i too live in brazil and there's nothing in the stores i go to, the oldies you cannot even think on getting it unless by internet and it's too expensive (don't forget that euro is $ 2,75 in our money, and there's a tax, at least, 50%) - you can call me a thief but i download...

JusLisn wrote: Personally I find that the availability shared files has broadened my musical interests, especially in the prog category, and find that I am purchasing more cd's than I had previously. Therefore I am contributing more to the music industry in general. I think it evens out in the end.

That's one of the reasons that convince me that a fan downloading just can contribute to the musicians, more than affect them negatively. The download is a starting point to a deeper curiosity that leads you to the search of the real product - when you can find him.

I do like to have the original product with lyrics, artwork etc. But if a friend is interested in one of my CDs, I don't feel any guilty in making a copy to him. It was the same thing with the old K-7s, and I can't agree with the criticism about this kind of behaviour.

The music corporations are out of reality, and the distribution of products in countries of the Third World still s**ks, even with this whole globalization. The taxes we pay for foreign products, even when they are related to culture (music and books), are extorsive. So I'm waiting for a more disciplined and fair form of legal download of music and the material suport of the albums (artwork, etc.).

Just for example: from the fifty most popular albums of Progarchives.com, only 30 % are currently available in our local stores, if so. All albums from Camel's glory years are out-of-stock for more than a decade. What more can I do to know a group non-familiar to me? Shot in the dark? I'm sorry, but I think the same reasons that justify the RoIOs can be aplied to the downloading, since you don't have any gain in cash with this (selling copies, for instance).  

Velvetclown wrote: Sorry MIKE but who wANT SOME CHEESY mp3 S

Cheesy mp3s? Napster uses 192kbps WMA files, they sound ok. But of course a CD will sound better, and a vinyl album with astonishing artwork will even LOOK good.

@ Mike:

 I don't want to pay for it, I don't like .wma files (they are useless to me because i have an ipod), the selection is weak, and I dont want to pay for it.

also, I dont want to pay for it.

in other words, i have no excuse, I'm just an evil person.

@GoldenSpiral: What's weak about the selection? And it's ever growing ... I've only been using Napster for 6 days and I've already downloaded more than 4000 songs, 27 Gigabytes.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: @GoldenSpiral: What's weak about the selection? And it's ever growing ... I've only been using Napster for 6 days and I've already downloaded more than 4000 songs, 27 Gigabytes.

let me make my excuses!   the real truth is i just dont want to pay for music, so the rest are mostly excuses to cover that (except the .wma thing is true)

MikeEnRegalia wrote: @GoldenSpiral: What's weak about the selection? And it's ever growing ... I've only been using Napster for 6 days and I've already downloaded more than 4000 songs, 27 Gigabytes.

Sounds like an excellent deal ... and legal too!  

Well, if one chooses to download huge quantities of files illegally, because $10/month is too expensive ... I'll say that much: It's not rational. I understand the iPod issue though.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Well, if one chooses to download huge quantities of files illegally, because $10/month is too expensive ... I'll say that much: It's not rational. I understand the iPod issue though.

Unlimited downloads for 10$ a month? And the artists actually getting something from the deal?

(drools)

Manunkind wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Well, if one chooses to download huge quantities of files illegally, because $10/month is too expensive ... I'll say that much: It's not rational. I understand the iPod issue though. Unlimited downloads for 10$ a month? And the artists actually getting something from the deal? (drools)

The situation for the artist with Napster is relatively similar to that with real CDs. The music industry gets most of the monthly fee. The difference is that not individual sales (downloads) are counted, but playtime of the tracks. playtime statistics are collected my Napster and made available to the music industry, so they can distribute the money ... so playtime relates to album sales.

I like this approach ... and Napster also hosts many independent labels. Essentially you can pick up an instrumen, record some stuff and give it to Napster. If it receives 1% of the total playtime, you'll get 1% of the monthly fees (minus a small provision for Napster).

Right and wrong; illegal and legal are not black and white anymore nowadays.

The Napster thing with $10/month might be legal, but the artists doesn't gain much from it.
The Russian sites where you can buy songs for $0,10 or an amount per downloaded kb are legal for Russian law, yet they could be considered illegal for other jurisdictions.

If rationality does not give you guidance anymore, go with your feeling.
If you feel you truly wish to support a certain artist, buy it directly from the artist.

Well... I download a lot of music, however,  prog is the only music I really appreciate, hence, I started buying CDs.. I've got 3 CDs so far.. :))

Really though, when it comes to buying CDs, I become quite cheap, because there are lots of things of which I need to buy in the money and no budget left for CDs and also a recent question I had is if there is a lifespan for CDs ..

Btw, you keep mentioning the quality difference between CDs and MP3, you have to remember however that to 'normal ears' it takes years of listening to music in order to feel the difference between CD quality and 192mp3..

Under wrote: The Napster thing with $10/month might be legal, but the artists doesn't gain much from it.

The artists don't gain much from CD sales either.

goose wrote: GoldenSpiral wrote: goose wrote: Well, the iPod doesn't even meet the technical official specification to play MP3, so what do you expect? It does, in fact, play mp3.  pretty much everything I have is in mp3 format at 192kbps or higher.  the only stuff in that god awful .m4a format is the stuff i got from iTunes before i decided i hated it. It will certainly play some MP3s, but will skip playing a VBR encoded one with lots of changes of bitrate (which is the whole point of VBR). On the iPod, I'd imagine you're better off listening to m4a since if I recall correctly that only supports VBR mode, so you don't have to worry about wasting space.

Did some research on the subject....

old iPods did not support VBR, but as of genIII they do support VBR mp3.  i haven't had any problems with playing files.

I agree downloading music from prog artists is not fair because these artists dont have big sales, promotions and success  as other rock artists, and live with the few records they can sell or the gigs they perform...

 Another story are very famous artists (U2,Rolling Stones,Coldplay) which are now millionaire and can afford theri music is downloaded, without big losses.

I like to listen and download sample music from websites like progarchives, and then if I like I buy the album.

I think prog artists should be promoted this way and  let people know their music trhough this kind of download. In this way people can be aware of music which would be completely unknown otherwise...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Under wrote: The Napster thing with $10/month might be legal, but the artists doesn't gain much from it. The artists don't gain much from CD sales either.

That depends where you buy the CD. At the local store you are probably right.
But at this artist himself....Even an artist can make a good copy of its own music. That with a solid printer for the cover and he is able to sell a nice looking CD with his own music with a limited cost price.