Americans really don't want to pay for music in their cars

[Pete from Boston]

I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?

Because it's someone's job to make music and they deserve to be paid for their work.  If the public consensus became that your work should be done at your expense, but still required hundreds and thousands of hours for you to do it, would it be ethical?  It would not, but people would surely take it given a cloak of invisibility like the internet affords music takers.

Musicians have told me services like Spotify pay them about two cents a play.  There is very little economic incentive for anyone to try to make music for others to listen to.  So when people complain about the low quality of music these days, maybe a diminishing pool of suckers willing to work for free has something to do with it.

[jeffandnicole]

It seems like they are intentionally making free radio stations shitty so that more people will get satellite radio. Back in the old days (not too long ago), free radio was pretty good. Now, around here anyway, it's putrid, despite the fact that there has been a decent amount of good music coming out recently.

Where are these free radio stations?  If you're talking about the normal FM band, that would be the complete opposite of the truth.  Those stations are hoping to keep you listening, so that advertisers will pay more.

If you're talking about free music on the internet, there's a lot of legalize stuff that deal with music.  Broadcasters can't simply take someone's music and broadcast it for everyone to hear - they have to pay the artists for that music.  If you're not liking what you're listening to, chances are it's because that's the only music the artists are allowing the broadcaster to play, maybe in the hopes that you'll buy their music later on.  And if you're listening for free, and the broadcaster isn't making much or any money (or losing money), there's no incentive for the broadcaster to play good stuff to allow you to listen...again, for free.

[Pete from Boston]

It seems like they are intentionally making free radio stations shitty so that more people will get satellite radio. Back in the old days (not too long ago), free radio was pretty good. Now, around here anyway, it's putrid, despite the fact that there has been a decent amount of good music coming out recently.

Where are these free radio stations?  If you're talking about the normal FM band, that would be the complete opposite of the truth.  Those stations are hoping to keep you listening, so that advertisers will pay more.

Shitty and popular are not mutually exclusive.

[NE2]

It's basically the same as stealing.

Stealing means that the person you stole from now lacks something they actually had. Think about it.

[Pete from Boston]

It's basically the same as stealing.

Stealing means that the person you stole from now lacks something they actually had. Think about it.

Since the great majority of music now has no real worth other than to those that throw away time and money making it, there is also no value being taken.  This means by extension that musicians' lives are worthless, which could make for an interesting murder defense.

[Brandon]

It's basically the same as stealing.

Stealing means that the person you stole from now lacks something they actually had. Think about it.

There's more to that, if you're being honest.  There's also the theft of intellectual property.  This property is copyrighted for a reason so that the artist or author who made the work gets some sort of compensation for his/her work.

Yes, SPUI, it is stealing, just not the same as burglary or shoplifting.

[ET21]

Spotify is free if you don't wanna pay premium. So you deal with a shuffle playlist and a couple commercials every 30 minutes, big deal 

[bugo]

I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?

Because it's illegal and unethical?

Illegal, meh. Unethical, that is your opinion.

[Pete from Boston]

I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?

Because it's illegal and unethical?

Illegal, meh. Unethical, that is your opinion.

As long as you also work for free, I see nothing unethical about it.

[bugo]

I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical. I also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.

I'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.

Besides, artists don't make much money off record sales. They make most of their money on touring and selling merchandise. I'm sure bands have made lots of money off of somebody downloading their music and going to shows or buying a shirt. They wouldn't have known their music without the "illegal" downloads and therefore wouldn't be spending their money on the band's merchandise or going to one of their shows.

[formulanone]

I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical.

Usually cheaper as a download - you can listen to parts of an album first.

I also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.

Entirely debatable, unless you're a 1960's Motown artist. Otherwise, most employees don't own the ideas they've put on someone else's medium, so that's a bunch of legal tough-noughie that's always held up in court.

I'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.

Not everyone feels the same about copyright, but that's why the law is there. I say that as someone who's had tons of his Creative Commons photos reused (mostly with attribution), so some site can generate ad revenue. Personally, I think patents, copyrights, and intellectual property rights should be the same number of years; 17-20. The 120-year corporate authorship law, which was modified in the late-1990s is total horseshit.

I think a musician has a right to earn some intrinsic valuable for what they do if they're releasing music or if it's broadcasted, unless explicitly said otherwise; if you released a song, but a cover band immediately re-wrote it and modified it, and then made scads of money on what was your work, then you'd probably be a little annoyed if you weren't acknowledged and/or getting some sort of royalty for it. So the copyright is to also protect that from happening, although courts have interpreted that in various ways: a straight-up parody is totally okay, but re-using a five-second sample of a 15-year-old song is not...go figure.

For the few times a song of yours might be replayed by a complete stranger, probably not a big deal. But how many strangers does it take until it does matter to you?

[bugo]

I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical.

Usually cheaper as a download - you can listen to parts of an album first.

That's something that has only been available for about a decade and could disappear just as quickly.

I also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.

Entirely debatable, unless you're a 1960's Motown artist. Otherwise, most employees don't own the ideas they've put on someone else's medium, so that's a bunch of legal tough-noughie that's always held up in court.

I know some professional musicians and they have all confirmed what I said. They make very little money from royalties.

I'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.

Not everyone feels the same about copyright, but that's why the law is there. I say that as someone who's had tons of his Creative Commons photos reused (mostly with attribution), so some site can generate ad revenue. Personally, I think patents, copyrights, and intellectual property rights should be the same number of years; 17-20. The 120-year corporate authorship law, which was modified in the late-1990s is total horseshit.

I think a musician has a right to earn some intrinsic valuable for what they do if they're releasing music or if it's broadcasted, unless explicitly said otherwise; if you released a song, but a cover band immediately re-wrote it and modified it, and then made scads of money on what was your work, then you'd probably be a little annoyed if you weren't acknowledged and/or getting some sort of royalty for it. So the copyright is to also protect that from happening, although courts have interpreted that in various ways: a straight-up parody is totally okay, but re-using a five-second sample of a 15-year-old song is not...go figure.

For the few times a song of yours might be replayed by a complete stranger, probably not a big deal. But how many strangers does it take until it does matter to you?

If 50 fans download the album and 5 of them show up to a show, then it wouldn't matter to me. Money is money.

[The Nature Boy]

This is timely: http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/longtime-free-music-streaming-site-grooveshark-shut-down/

And no one actually buys albums much anymore. You can download a song for .99 for crying out loud.

OR

You can do what I do, I have a subscription to Amazon Prime, which doesn't cost much AND gets me a ton of free music and TV shows and even free shipping. I have 500 songs of my iPhone, all legally obtained and available for offline use because of Amazon Prime. It pays for itself pretty quickly and it's legal.

[vdeane]

This explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely.  If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.

Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.

There's chatter about it: http://blog.motorists.org/the-end-of-amfm-radio/

I don't pay anything online. I don't put my debit card number out there in cyberspace. Technology gets hacked, identities are stolen, and then life is hell for a couple of years. Thanks but noooooo thanks.

I don't think you're familiar with online bill pay.  With the exception of E-ZPass (due to the deposit required if not automatically replenishing), Verizon (due to corporate policy that I have no say in), and State Farm (which I still pay by check because they don't send electronic statements), everything is done via First Niagara's online bill pay interface.  I simply enter the BILLER's information (NOT mine) once, and then every time I get a bill, I only have to enter the amount and click "submit".  The biller never gets my bank account or credit card info at all.  Meanwhile, all checks include your bank account info, so you're essentially giving them direct access (in fact, State Farm never even cashes the checks I send them; they just use the info on the check to automatically debit my account when they receive them).

I wouldn't use a debit card anywhere, online or off.  That's just asking for trouble if someone gets hacked.

[mgk920]

I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical. I also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.

I'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.

Besides, artists don't make much money off record sales. They make most of their money on touring and selling merchandise. I'm sure bands have made lots of money off of somebody downloading their music and going to shows or buying a shirt. They wouldn't have known their music without the "illegal" downloads and therefore wouldn't be spending their money on the band's merchandise or going to one of their shows.

The 'Grateful Dead' business plan.



Mike

[PHLBOS]

This explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely.  If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.

Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.

There's chatter about it: http://blog.motorists.org/the-end-of-amfm-radio/

Given that the source is a blog rather than an genuine article regarding Vehicle Manufacturer X to drop AM/FM radios as standard equipment; I wouldn't put too much stock in such... at least not yet.

Although it's worth noting that there is one rather scathing comment in that blog (no, I did not write it):

Car makers really don't think anyone other than those who have connected themselves. their lives to a smart phone count which tracks our every move and thought.

But what they forget is that still at least a third of us have no use for these toys, which really do nothing new in our daily lives....Very expensive monthly fees, data limits which make these things nothing more than decoration once the data limit is reached.

I along with a lot of us still get along perfectly fine with a dumb phone, a Garmin GPS, a paper map( US/Canada street.highway/freeway atlas), a WINxp equipped computer for browsing the internet for purchases and cable or sat connection to watch our programs....

We still spend a lot of money and should not be forgotten so easily by those in charge less they do something which removes us from consideration of their new product.

Removing the CD player for right now at least is a very short sited move, and taking the am/fm or at least for now the fm radio out is a really short cited move.......

Give new cars these new smart phone and media connections, but leave the old options in there so as not remove them as a option for regular people who don't have an extra $300 a month laying around to waist on a smart phone and really high speed internet networks...........

Above-incorrect hononyms aside (waist instead of waste, cited instead of sighted), I generally agree with the commenter.  Allow for the ability for the new technology but don't completely do away with the long-standing existing technology.

It's worth noting that it wasn't until the 1970s or even the early 1980s, at the latest, that all vehicles came equipped with a factory radio.  Some entry-level models that had an AM radio listed as standard equipment had a Delete For Credit listing that could be checked off when ordering.

At a car show a year or two ago; I saw a nicely restored 1966 Ford Custom (entry level model in Ford's full-size line-up) 2-door sedan that indeed did not come equipped with any radio.  It had a matching factory trim piece with the letters F O R D placed where the radio would have been if so equipped.

[Pete from Boston]

What sucker pays $300/month for a smartphone?  I stream quite a bit, but still would only pay only about the same $90 if I didn't have unlimited data.

[The Nature Boy]

I only pay $50 per month for my phone. I use Straight Talk which is reasonably reliable. My data does get throttled at 2 GB so that can be somewhat problematic for streaming purposes.

[english si]

That's something that has only been available for about a decade and could disappear just as quickly.

Also, depending on which service you are using, you don't actually own the copy of the song on your device and it can disappear even though you've paid for it.

[US 41]

Let me add something to this too. 99% of music downloaded is music from successful musicians. They are all probably millionaires. I doubt people downloading their songs is really affecting their profits a lot. If someone downloaded music from the 70's and 80's it doesn't matter too much either. Heck half of those people are dead anyways. Also I read an article once that said that people who download music illegally are also the ones that buy the most music. I would tend to agree with that.

[bugo]

What sucker pays $300/month for a smartphone?  I stream quite a bit, but still would only pay only about the same $90 if I didn't have unlimited data.

I pay $60 for 20GB.

[Pete from Boston]

What sucker pays $300/month for a smartphone?  I stream quite a bit, but still would only pay only about the same $90 if I didn't have unlimited data.

I pay $60 for 20GB.

Even further underscoring the point.

[The Nature Boy]

Any cell phone company that charges $300/month for cell service deserves to go out of business.

[Dougtone]

This explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely.  If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.

Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.

I've heard that this is a possibility, but I'm not sure if it's seriously in the works to not put in dash radio in new motor vehicles. This is pretty much what I was able to find.
http://jalopnik.com/will-am-and-fm-radio-really-be-eliminated-on-new-cars-453849045

[Duke87]

This explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely.  If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.

Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.

In short: no. Not yet anyway. But it did come out a couple years ago that car companies were seeking to do it in the future.

Market reality is that a lot of people don't listen to radio the old fashioned way anymore. Usually their either stream a station online, or use a service like Pandora. In response to this, what car companies wanted to do was eliminate the AM/FM tuner and give the car a built in mp3 player/online streaming device. Because, they argued, this is what people are already doing just with their smartphones instead of the car itself. After all, by this method you could stream any station from anywhere, rather than only the ones in range of your current location.

But then once word got out, it proved less popular than expected, so the industry has backpedaled.

The chief concern is that radio signals are far more reliable than cell signals, and thus are much more useful for broadcasting information in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. Radio signals are also better at reaching rural areas. Currently you can still pick up radio just fine in lots of places where cell service is nonexistent.

That, and of course, lots of people are not willing to part with their radios. Or worry about paying for a data subscription since that cell receiver isn't going to have permanent free access to the airwaves.