Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who's doing this to my internet?

veekaybee.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 306 posts

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#41

Post by golergka »

yebyen wrote: post #21
deanCommie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since when is $1.50 "a lot" to pay for a song when the standard going rate for a song on iTune is 99cents?

50% more? iTunes is a premium service. Buy songs a-la-carte at $0.99 and pay more than you would for the whole physical album. Or am I out of touch? Back when I was buying music you could get CDs for $10 or a little more, and they usually had at least 10 songs on them... It is a lot. Record companies don't want you to buy online, they want you to prop up their traditional multi-middleman distribution schemes, so they…

Beatport is premium service. iTunes is the cheap one.

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#42

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

woofyman wrote: post #16
icebraining wrote: post #7

Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.

A 45 RPM single in 1962 was $1.00. That would be $5.60 adjusted for inflation today.

Supply and demand? ie: There is a glut today, did similar market conditions exist in '62?

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#43

Post by Steuard »

icebraining wrote: post #7

Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.

The part that stuck out to me was when the author talked about her desire to have a long-term archive of her favorite music, but wasn't willing to "wait for 2 days for a CD to ship". I can understand not wanting to deal with CDs or not wanting to spend money on less-favorite songs on the album, but focusing on the delay just doesn't click for me.

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#45

Post by Lazare »

vkb wrote: post #26
icebraining wrote: post #7

Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.

Everyone is chiming in on this point, so I don't think I wrote it clearly enough. I would be willing to pay $1.50 for a song if it were through a known party, like Amazon Payments or PayPal. I've bought lots of music through Amazon. I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website. Additionally, my expectations as a consumer have been set to pay 99 cents per track, so to me, in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems li…

If you don't mind sharing (and if you still recall) what was the payment service they were using?

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#46

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

caf wrote: post #30
yebyen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% more? iTunes is a premium service. Buy songs a-la-carte at $0.99 and pay more than you would for the whole physical album. Or am I out of touch? Back when I was buying music you could get CDs for $10 or a little more, and they usually had at least 10 songs on them... It is a lot. Record companies don't want you to buy online, they want you to prop up their traditional multi-middleman distribution schemes, so they…

A CD might have 10+ tracks on it, but it's a fixed bundle of 10+ tracks chosen by the artist, so of course the per-track cost on a CD is going to be lower than for individual tracks.

Don't items usually cost more if broken out individually?

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#47

Post by JustSomeNobody »

Buetol wrote: post #2

Basically, a basic income would solve this since people are doing it because they need money to survive. Sometimes I think that money is corrupting everything and in the future it will be seen as an aberration. Hard to tell. EDIT: It's not money directly than corrupts human to do not do the right things. It's forcing people the earn money to survive.

I'm just not following the connection from ads on the internet to a basic income.

I've heard some good arguments for as well as against a basic income. I've never heard ads on the internet as one of them.

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#48

Post by fit2rule »

This is why I think solutions like IPFS are the future:

http://ipfs.io/

(tl;dr: go get github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/cmd/ipfs)

Basically, the day will come when any single one of us will be able to serve our own content privately from our own machine without requiring a massive infrastructure investment, nor any kind of fancy participation in what is, essentially, branding on steroids (Internet of today), but rather all it will require to sell and control ones own art is to publish it yourself with cryptographic certainty that there simply is no middle man any more.

Its the third party that degrades all art - those who have to carry the stuff from place to place in order to pimp things for the artist. Get rid of this, and give the artist direct and completely control over where and when and to whom their art is delivered, and we produce the utopia that many of us artists wish we had. It is unbearable to have to go through a third party to get to the masses; to have direct contact is the ultimate goal..

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#49

Post by sillygeese »

vkb wrote: post #26
icebraining wrote: post #7

Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.

Everyone is chiming in on this point, so I don't think I wrote it clearly enough. I would be willing to pay $1.50 for a song if it were through a known party, like Amazon Payments or PayPal. I've bought lots of music through Amazon. I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website. Additionally, my expectations as a consumer have been set to pay 99 cents per track, so to me, in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems li…

> I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website.

$1.50 isn't much of a risk you know, even if you don't know the website. You'd probably even get the song!

Also, if a song is on Audio CD, it's probably on iTunes too.

> in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems like it's too much

This makes no sense. If you're a true music lover, a great song will give you countless hours of enjoyment and appreciation. Do you seriously think $1.50 is too much for that?

Compare to paying $10 for a movie ticket. You get 2 hours of entertainment, the movie might suck, and you don't get much from watching it again. That's massively worse value than $1.50 for a great song you can listen to over and over again.

I would gladly pay $1000 for Prince's Purple Rain, if there was no other way to get it.

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#50

Post by mironathetin »

" There have to be business models that allow the creativity of sites like XKCD, Reddit, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, to flourish. "

There, in the last sentence is the relevant insight. But, sadly, here the post stops.

I must admit, for me the most relevant information was google using the computers mike through chrome. I am shocked how far companies can go and do go. I think this finally ends the discussion about google being evil or not.

Post reply on HN