Albums You Can Listen To...

Originally posted by Eraserhead
Full refunds?
I don't know where you're from, but where I'm at you can't get full refunds for CD's you've already opened. An exchange, yes. A refund, no. You can take it back to a place that sells used CD's and get 5-8 bucks, but that's not a full refund.

HMV, for example, have a returns policy whereby if you have the receipt, you can get a refund. That being said, alot of my CDs are bought online. You can get a total refund there at all times.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
I totally see where you're coming from, but I moved on from that. I used to buy every tape and CD I could get my hands on. Whether or not I had heard the album. But as I got older my outlook changed. Mainly and only for money. As soon as I moved out and started living on my own I've had to cut back more and more on album purchases. Which sucks because I love listening to music. I myself don't see anything wrong with d/l an album, buying it if I like it, and deleting it if I don't. In fact, that's pretty much all I do now. Saved me sooooo much cash and I'm personally happy about that. I'm not ripping off the artists because I don't make a profit off of their work. I don't d/l CD's to turn around and sell them. In fact, as I see it, it's just like I used to do before I started d/l music. If a friend had an album I was interested in, I would borrow it and check it out. If I liked it I would buy it. If I didn't I wouldn't.

You aren't making profit, but they're losing money by you not paying for it. That's a fact. It's like littering. One person happened to think "Meh, one can thrown on the floor won't hurt." Next thing you know we're in 2005 with a ****ed up eco-system and a hole in the o-zone layer. Same with albums. If everyone assumes they aren't hurting by downloading, artist are gonna (and do) suffer.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
Sometimes I would go to record stores that had the album available to listen to, and I would do the same in that particular situation. I don't think I was ripping off the artists just because I was listening to their album before I purchased it. You may think differently, and I respect that, but I feel very differently. I just don't have the money now to blind buy every CD I want. Man, I wish I did. I love having all my CD's lined up. I love reading the inserts. I love the feeling of opening a new CD. Just can't do it right now. I've saved so much cash, I can honestly say I don't regret ever d/l an album. Every album that I've listened to and enjoyed I purchased. I've never sold any bootlegs. And the funny thing is, d/l music got me into artists I never would have heard of if I didn't have the opportunity to d/l their music. There's so many artists out there I've never would of heard of if it wasn't for d/l their music. I've spent a lot of cash on albums that way. Artists have gotten my money just because of a d/l. Where before they never would have... I still support many artists whether or not I know the albums good. Doom, anything from Peanuts and Corn, De La Soul, ect ect. I just don't have the cash to do it on every artist I come across.

I respect that because as you said, you've allegedly bought every album you've ever downloaded so technically no one is getting financially ripped off. I personally believe downloading is ruining the experience intended by the artist. You get one chance to listen to an album for the first time, it shouldn't be on an internet download.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
At the end of the day, I'm still broke from buying so many damn CD's. But at the same time, I've saved a lot of money in the process by d/l music. I always support the artists I enjoy and never profit off of their music in any way. I know you like making blind buys and that's cool. Have a blast. It's just not for everyone.

But stealing is? Because that's what downloading is. If you worked in a clothes store and you got paid commission bonus, how would you feel if people stole purely because they don't have the money? You're suffering from that, coz the more people steal, the less gets sold. The less that gets sold, the less you make a living from. People say "Artists shouldn't care if they love the music". My answer to that is, when you get a job you love, don't ask to be paid. The fact that you love it should be enough.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
and if I did get a full refund I would buy CD's everyday.

Play.com do free delivery on every CD and they're extremely cheap.

Amazon.com also. Both do returns policies.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The idea that you obtain joy out of buying albums, regardless of quality, marks you down as a hope-less consumer, who has been converted by those who see file-sharing as an evil, evil, bad thing. Get a grip, dear boy! What you are squirting on about isn't cool, and certainly isn't clever.

I don't obtain joy from buying albums regardless of quality. I think the most exciting part of music is buying albums you have possibly no clue about and maybe digging into a band you like.

Do you have any idea why file-sharing sucks? Let me run the facts by you junior:

Artists pay for the recording, production and advertising of the record. They pay for the videos (depending if they have one or not). They pay the touring costs, then there's the merch crews, road crews, legal fees and such. So when you're downloading the albums, they're touring and LOSING money if you don't pay for their albums. Medium sized bands have to sell over half a million records to even begin to make money as a result of downloading. So by stealing their music, you're increasing the chances that bands who aren't actually very rich, won't be able to tour anymore, or record music. It's pathetic, unknowledgeable kids like you who have your heads stuck in the sand that think downloading is great. It's not.

So before you address me, know your shit first.

-AC

Eraserhead, that was brilliantly said. I wish i could turn back the clock sometimes and spend my weeks wage on CD's but i have more important things on my list. That said i have ordered a CD recently that i never would have known about if i hadnt d/l a couple of tracks from it, so as you rightly said that artist gets money from me that he wouldnt have seen otherwise. I love buying CD's when i get the chance but its just not practical for me to buy an album on the off chance that it might be golden.

There are factual reason, some of which I just posted, as to why downloading is wrong.

Let's not slip into thinking it's subjective.

-AC

Factual reasons? It's subjective, not factual.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There are factual reason, some of which I just posted, as to why downloading is wrong.

Let's not slip into thinking it's subjective.

-AC

I've read what you posted, i even respect your opinion on this matter. Shame you cant do the same.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Artists pay for the recording, production and advertising of the record. They pay for the videos (depending if they have one or not). They pay the touring costs, then there's the merch crews, road crews, legal fees and such. So when you're downloading the albums, they're touring and LOSING money if you don't pay for their albums. Medium sized bands have to sell over half a million records to even begin to make money as a result of downloading. So by stealing their music, you're increasing the chances that bands who aren't actually very rich, won't be able to tour anymore, or record music. It's pathetic, unknowledgeable kids like you who have your heads stuck in the sand that think downloading is great. It's not.

So before you address me, know your shit first.

Ooo, check out your pink, fluffy hand-bag! It goes so well with your narrow-minded world-view. The idea that a personal consideration of the pros and cons of file-sharing can be applied to the world and acknowledged as a fact, clearly high-lights your lack of worldly experience.

To prescribe an opinion and attempt to apply it to the world is preposterous. Have you ever lent a CD to a friend? Recorded a movie from TV? Read a book from a library? These actions are, in essence, the same as file-sharing. The simple difference is that file-sharing is a relatively new mode of exchange.

For my next trick, I will insert my little finger up your anus and control you like the little puppet you are.

Originally posted by Snoopbert
Factual reasons? It's subjective, not factual.

No, read the reply. Those are factual, financial reasons as to why artists suffer from downloading. It's not subjective.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Ooo, check out your pink, fluffy hand-bag! It goes so well with your narrow-minded world-view. The idea that a personal consideration of the pros and cons of file-sharing can be applied to the world and acknowledged as a fact, clearly high-lights your lack of worldly experience.

There are facts and opinions surrounding the topic of file sharing. Everything I said in my reply to you is a fact. Factual. Not my opinion. What I discussed with Eraserhead, while strongly able to be backed up, is an subjective view. That's why I said there were facts and opinions surrounding it. Because there are, and I know them both. The fact that you don't, isn't my problem. You chose to speak on a subject of which you are apparantly uneducated.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
To prescribe an opinion and attempt to apply it to the world is preposterous. Have you ever lent a CD to a friend? Recorded a movie from TV? Read a book from a library? These actions are, in essence, the same as file-sharing. The simple difference is that file-sharing is a relatively new mode of exchange.

Agreed. Thanks for proving my point. If I lend a CD to a friend, his or her first impression of the album is coming from the actual intended package, the release. Not a dozen or more ripped MP3's on the net. He or she are hearing music that has been paid for, not stolen. Everyone I've ever lent a CD to has gone out and bought it, because they've like it. I don't lend CDs out anymore anyway.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
For my next trick, I will insert my little finger up your anus and control you like the little puppet you are.

Why are you talking about anal insertion? Please don't. It's not nice. Instead, stop being an ill-informed, ignorant little cockshit and start trying to know what you're talking about, because you're clueless.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, read the reply. Those are factual, financial reasons as to why artists suffer from downloading. It's not subjective.

Seems to me that you're telling WMDs.

Agreed. Thanks for proving my point. If I lend a CD to a friend, his or her first impression of the album is coming from the actual intended package, the release. Not a dozen or more ripped MP3's on the net. He or she are hearing music that has been paid for, not stolen. Everyone I've ever lent a CD to has gone out and bought it, because they've like it. I don't lend CDs out anymore anyway.

The relationship is the same. An MP3 originally began life as a happy little CD, that decided to grow up and share the love. If only you could do the same...

Why are you talking about anal insertion? Please don't. It's not nice. Instead, stop being an ill-informed, ignorant little cockshit and start trying to know what you're talking about, because you're clueless.

Why did you begin talking about sand-pits? Don't you know that's where the doggies do their doo-doo? Oh, wait a minute...yeah, you probably do.

Your pseudo-intelligence and faux-arrogance may work on the 12-year-olds, but it doesn't twinkle my toes. Ultimately, you're just an extension of their ignorance.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Seems to me that you're telling WMDs.

I'm not, because those are factual. Not my opinion. I don't just think all that stuff happens, it actually does.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The relationship is the same. An MP3 originally began life as a happy little CD, that decided to grow up and share the love. If only you could do the same...

Clutching at straws now my friend. The artist puts the work in, the effort, the time and the money, to release an album on a certain date in a certain way. Hearing it any other way is going against that. So no, it's not the same. Ripping on song of a body of work and spreading it around the net is not the same at all. Like ripping a piece off a painting and showing it to people. It wasn't intended to be seen like that and there for is in direct violation of the presentation intended by the artist.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Why did you begin talking about sand-pits? Don't you know that's where the doggies do their doo-doo? Oh, wait a minute...yeah, you probably do.

Your pseudo-intelligence and faux-arrogance may work on the 12-year-olds, but it doesn't twinkle my toes. Ultimately, you're just an extension of their ignorance.

You came in here as if you were Mr. T and I sent you packing. What do you want? You're clueless to this issue and clearly know nothing about it. Hence why your replies have been chopped in half and turned into nothing more than a comedy show.

Try again when you've got some sense.

-AC

I think we've all made our points now and can step down from the soap boxes. 😉

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
HMV, for example, have a returns policy whereby if you have the receipt, you can get a refund. That being said, alot of my CDs are bought online. You can get a total refund there at all times.

HMV?

I rarely buy CD's from online stores, but that sounds interesting. The places I've gotten CD's from online didn't offer refunds unless the item is damaged... And that kind of policy doesn't make sense to me. Why refund the money just because the consumer doesn't like what they've heard. They would basically be renting their CD's out. They would just be holding your money until you return the item.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You aren't making profit, but they're losing money by you not paying for it. That's a fact. It's like littering. One person happened to think "Meh, one can thrown on the floor won't hurt." Next thing you know we're in 2005 with a ****ed up eco-system and a hole in the o-zone layer. Same with albums. If everyone assumes they aren't hurting by downloading, artist are gonna (and do) suffer.

I see that you're trying to make an analogy but destroying our environment and not "paying" our musicians aren't even in the same ball park. Not even the same league. Like I said, I've borrowed CD's countless of times and ended up not buying the album because I wasn't impressed. So did I cost them money because I didn't go out and blindly buy their album? I couldn't disagree more.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I respect that because as you said, you've allegedly bought every album you've ever downloaded so technically no one is getting financially ripped off.

I never said I've purchased every album I've d/l. I said I've purchased every album I have enjoyed. And again, I see your point. That I'm costing them money by not blindly buying the album, but it's not anything people having been doing before file sharing programs. Certainly not like it is today, but everybody has borrowed albums and listened to them fully in record stores. I honestly don't think we're costing them money by listening to the product first. Ultimately we have a choice. Most of the time, in my case, the choice of d/l an album resulted in an artist getting paid. By me. Where as before, due to budget, I never would have even thought about buying the album. So many times. One example. I had heard a couple of singles by an artist Supastition and I wasn't really impressed at all. Just seemed like another battle MC and man I had heard too many at that point. I saw his album in a local shop I go to and didn't think anything of it. Time goes by. One day I see my friend has it (online). So I grab the album (d/l) because I was looking for any new music. I fell in love with it on the first listen. A truly good album by an artist I would come to enjoy and follow. Now I buy any of his material without having to listen to it. I know you're going to say that what's fun about buying CD's, but again I don't have that kind of money at this moment. It has been for some time, and will be for at least a couple of years. You seem to have the dough and that's great man. More power to you. Support as many artists as you can if it truly means that much to you. I personally don't realistically have that option right now.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I personally believe downloading is ruining the experience intended by the artist. You get one chance to listen to an album for the first time, it shouldn't be on an internet download.

I respect that you feel that way wholeheartedly, but I totally disagree. I know you have your opinion, but that opinion doesn't dictate how I feel when I listen to an album for the first time.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
But stealing is? Because that's what downloading is. If you worked in a clothes store and you got paid commission bonus, how would you feel if people stole purely because they don't have the money? You're suffering from that, coz the more people steal, the less gets sold. The less that gets sold, the less you make a living from. People say "Artists shouldn't care if they love the music". My answer to that is, when you get a job you love, don't ask to be paid. The fact that you love it should be enough.

I'm not trying to say d/l albums is "ok". Or even that it doesn't cost artists money because people make money from bootlegs and that is completely wrong. Something that I myself would Never do... but I don't look at what I do as stealing. As soon as I realize that a particular album isn't for me I delete it forever. Maybe it is wrong to do so, but I'm not a perfect man. Maybe some people think they are. But I know one thing for sure, I'm Not making artists broke and keeping food off of their table.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Play.com do free delivery on every CD and they're extremely cheap.

Amazon.com also. Both do returns policies.

Thanks for the heads up about Play.com. I seriously have to check that out. And I hope they both do return policies for albums I don't enjoy listening to because they're probably going to get a lot back.

Originally posted by koolruningz
I think we've all made our points now and can step down from the soap boxes. 😉

FACTUAL

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Clutching at straws now my friend. The artist puts the work in, the effort, the time and the money, to release an album on a certain date in a certain way. Hearing it any other way is going against that. So no, it's not the same. Ripping on song of a body of work and spreading it around the net is not the same at all. Like ripping a piece off a painting and showing it to people. It wasn't intended to be seen like that and there for is in direct violation of the presentation intended by the artist.

The straws I'm clutching look like javelins compared to your tooth-picks. If you rip a piece off a painting, you are looking at part of a painting. If you rip an MP3, you are viewing the whole. Intentions change over time; they evolve like the world we live in. It's just a shame you're stuck in the past. Nothing is better or worse, just different.

You came in here as if you were Mr. T and I sent you packing. What do you want? You're clueless to this issue and clearly know nothing about it. Hence why your replies have been chopped in half and turned into nothing more than a comedy show.

To paraphrase the great man, "I pity you, fool!"

Teenage braggadocio is always unpleasent, praticularly when the child in question is no longer in his teens.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
HMV?

I rarely buy CD's from online stores, but that sounds interesting. The places I've gotten CD's from online didn't offer refunds unless the item is damaged... And that kind of policy doesn't make sense to me. Why refund the money just because the consumer doesn't like what they've heard. They would basically be renting their CD's out. They would just be holding your money until you return the item.

Definately check out those sites then man. I got a duplicate by accident and they said just send it back with the receipt and you get a refund.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
I see that you're trying to make an analogy but destroying our environment and not "paying" our musicians aren't even in the same ball park. Not even the same league. Like I said, I've borrowed CD's countless of times and ended up not buying the album because I wasn't impressed. So did I cost them money because I didn't go out and blindly buy their album? I couldn't disagree more.

I wasn't saying they're in the same league, I was making a point about ignorance.

You've borrowed CDs, that's fine. Those CDs are paid for I assume, and your first impression is from the album. How the artist intended. Not only is it financially wrong for reasons I've stated, but it is a bit shit to think that an artist might get turned down purely because people download shit versions of his/her work.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
I never said I've purchased every album I've d/l. I said I've purchased every album I have enjoyed. And again, I see your point. That I'm costing them money by not blindly buying the album, but it's not anything people having been doing before file sharing programs. Certainly not like it is today, but everybody has borrowed albums and listened to them fully in record stores. I honestly don't think we're costing them money by listening to the product first. Ultimately we have a choice. Most of the time, [b]in my case, the choice of d/l an album resulted in an artist getting paid. By me. Where as before, due to budget, I never would have even thought about buying the album. So many times. One example. I had heard a couple of singles by an artist Supastition and I wasn't really impressed at all. Just seemed like another battle MC and man I had heard too many at that point. I saw his album in a local shop I go to and didn't think anything of it. Time goes by. One day I see my friend has it (online). So I grab the album (d/l) because I was looking for any new music. I fell in love with it on the first listen. A truly good album by an artist I would come to enjoy and follow. Now I buy any of his material without having to listen to it. I know you're going to say that what's fun about buying CD's, but again I don't have that kind of money at this moment. It has been for some time, and will be for at least a couple of years. You seem to have the dough and that's great man. More power to you. Support as many artists as you can if it truly means that much to you. I personally don't realistically have that option right now.[/b]

The thing is, the subjective side of me being anti-downloading is the morals behind it. I PERSONALLY don't believe it's right to hear something first on the net as a bunch of ripped MP3's. I believe that removes from not only the experience, but the effort the artist has gone to. However, you download...right? Then as you've said. If it's an artist you like, you buy it. So the ends justify the means, because you're getting a good album, the artist is getting paid. So subjectively, I can't really complain because technically nobody is getting ripped there, and that's good. I recognise that not everyone can afford to go blindly buying albums, that's why I do tend to overlook my subjective view about it ruining the experience etc. Some people genuinely get broke and can't buy, but would if they could and do, if they can. Such as yourself. See my point?

Originally posted by Eraserhead
I respect that you feel that way wholeheartedly, but I totally disagree. I know you have your opinion, but that opinion doesn't dictate how I feel when I listen to an album for the first time.

That's the way you feel then. I disagree as strongly, but as long as it gets paid for, I have nothing but subjective disagreements.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
I'm not trying to say d/l albums is "ok". Or even that it doesn't cost artists money because people make money from bootlegs and that is completely wrong. Something that I myself would [b]Never do... but I don't look at what I do as stealing. As soon as I realize that a particular album isn't for me I delete it forever. Maybe it is wrong to do so, but I'm not a perfect man. Maybe some people think they are. But I know one thing for sure, I'm Not making artists broke and keeping food off of their table.[/b]

I agree with you. If you delete it when you hate it, fair enough. My point is that I hate people who claim to not have money for CD's, DOWNLOAD many albums and then quite clearly use their money to go get wasted out of their heads. Their life and I respect that. But that's when it's at it's most wrong, laziness. If you have the cash, want the album, but don't buy it just because you want something else, then you shouldn't be downloading it. If it's worth the downloading and listening time, it's worth buying.

Originally posted by Eraserhead
Thanks for the heads up about Play.com. I seriously have to check that out. And I hope they both do return policies for albums I don't enjoy listening to because they're probably going to get a lot back.

http://www.play.com

I got a duplicate the other day. They take back all unwanted items if you have the packaging, invoice etc.

-AC

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The straws I'm clutching look like javelins compared to your tooth-picks. If you rip a piece off a painting, you are looking at part of a painting. If you rip an MP3, you are viewing the whole. Intentions change over time; they evolve like the world we live in. It's just a shame you're stuck in the past. Nothing is better or worse, just different.

If you rip one MP3 off a body of musical art consisting of different songs, you're not hearing the whole are you? No, you're not.

You're as ignorant as you are oblivious.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
To paraphrase the great man, "I pity you, fool!"

Teenage braggadocio is always unpleasent, praticularly when the child in question is no longer in his teens.

Who isn't in their teens?

Secondly, stop replying if you're just gonna be hurling insults. I've smashed your arguement. You're finished kid.

-AC

I find the pretension that listening to down-loaded music is like having sex with a hooker, ridiculous. Get over yourself! Virgin Surgeons get aids and die.

Move the white flag, man. I can't see your post.

-AC

For someone who seems to believe they have 'won' a 'battle' of some-sort, you are amusingly lacking in legitimate rebuttals.

Here's a link to help you with any words you either don't understand or misunderstand:

www.dictionary.com

Welcome.

Considering I've reduced you to a bitter, internet link posting mess, I'd reconsider your position here and realise that any posture you have to even continue posting to me, is dubious at this point.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Considering I've reduced you to a bitter, internet link posting mess, I'd reconsider your position here and realise that any posture you have to even continue posting to me, is dubious at this point.

For someone who seems to believe they have 'won' a 'battle' of some-sort, you are amusingly lacking in legitimate rebuttals.

Here's a link to help you with any words you either don't understand or misunderstand:

www.dictionary.com

Welcome.

What was that about 'stepping your game up', Snoop?