Who actually pays for music downloads?

esuhl

Neonoptic wrote: »

You can make all the excuses you wish regarding sound quality, downloading without paying is theft, plain and simple!

For the last time, NO IT'S NOT!!! Look up the definition of "theft" if you don't believe me!

trickycomper

My pet hate in life is people who dont pay for music. Its against the law and dam right immoral.
Its expensive but if you cant afford it listen to the radio

googler

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

However what worries me about downloading paid for music is that if my computer breaks then I have lost it.

If you don't take backups, you deserve all you lose....

Save your data or lose it later.

googler

jayme1 wrote: »

yep you can, but it is mainly only Classical and Live music being sold lossless (unless you have a link to store with a greater selection, which would be much appreciated)

It depends who you talk to but I personally am very dubious of 24/96 and 24/192 they are (maybe) mostly a 'gimmick' as the human hearing is not able to hear a step up in quality from the 16/44.1 of CDs

Jazz and Classical at Linn's website.
hdtracks has a lot of mainstream
For others, see the reviews sections of the HiFi Magazines.

Avoid the Russian sites like allflac, as I'd wager all they're doing is taking a commercial CD, ripping it to FLAC, and posting it on their site. I could do that. If anyone can correct me on this, please do.

Do you really think 16/44 is the ultimate in quality, and no-one in the world can tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/96?

esuhl

trickycomper wrote: »

My pet hate in life is people who dont pay for music. Its against the law and dam right immoral.
Its expensive but if you cant afford it listen to the radio

If you hate people that don't pay for music... then it follows that you hate people that listen to music on the radio (since there is no charge to listen to radio broadcasts).

cdam

esuhl wrote: »

If you hate people that don't pay for music... then it follows that you hate people that listen to music on the radio (since there is no charge to listen to radio broadcasts).

ergo, if you hate people that don't pay for the food they take from supermarkets you hate people who eat sandwiches at a party (since they don't pay for those either...)

This thread seems to be about a moral imperative, it seems that those who are happy to download without paying are trying to justify their actions legally; those that do pay, justifying morally.

Kite2010

atruefaker wrote: »

Hi All

I want to buy my music, and some people have referred this downloading site to me, it looks pretty cheap. However, I want to know is it actually legal if I buy off them please - http://www.goldenmp3.ru/legality.html

Thanks in advance!

Avoid, they might say they are legal but I doubt any money they receive ends up in the pockets of the musicians (or even record companies), and do you really want to be handing over your card information to a semi-dodgy russian company?

jayme1

googler wrote: »

Do you really think 16/44 is the ultimate in quality, and no-one in the world can tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/96?

never said it was impossible, I said I was very dubious, obviously if I could buy 24/192 (or higher) over a lower number I would,
but without getting into a (dare I say, sad) audiophile argument, reading on all the audiophile sites there are numerous threads about how people can't hear any difference between x format and x format in a double blind test, but then people argue to the end of the earth that they can but then it turns out they know which format is playing, it just gets to a point where it certainly reads that people just are hearing what they want to hear.

studios and such use the highest quality lossless possible to capture the sound because it gives them the most, manoeuvrability to manipulate it later without any loss in sound quality, if they captured it at 320mp3 one conversion and it would sound dreadful.
it's the same reason I buy music in the highest quality (which is at the moment most of the time CD), so I can convert it to other formats without it sounding awful, something I couldn't if I bought it in mp3 or aac, I would have to buy it again, as not everything I own can play lossless or mp3/aac

plus it also gets to the point if you want an album you just have to make the decision to buy the CD now instead of waiting for a higher quality version to be released (if ever it is)

but yeah one day I hope we will all be buying all our music in WAV DXD 24bit 352.8kHz, whether we can hear the difference or not.

elegant_shark

I still pay for some downloads; a lot of the bands I listen to aren't at all easy to come across and so I pay because they make wonderful music but aren't big; I simply feel they deserve it, I guess (lack of wording but hopefully it's somewhat an idea of what I mean)

Some bands I know do not charge at all for their music but I give a donation to because I like it. I've never had an issue with buying music, I only ever used free downloads because they aren't available elsewhere but if I'm honest I miss not having a hard copy

Kel_1981

I download first if possible, if I like the quality of the recording (important to me as I have a Zeppelin Air) and the rest of the songs on the album, I'll support the artist and buy it. You can't return an MP3 can you? Who would buy a car without test driving it?