Quantcast

Would you pay 99 cents to embed a song?

chaoskitty123 2012/06/04 07:15:01
I would pay $.99 per song to legally embed the music.
I think I should be allowed to do it without paying
I Think...
You!
Add Photos & Videos
When I was a kid, the music industry encouraged us to buy their music and make duplicates. Those of us from the 80's generation will remember this as the music industry made money selling us jam boxes, blank cassettes and so forth. Then came cd's and they initially started doing the same thing selling cd dubbing equipment... I even bought one of them produced by Phillips.

Then came the internet and some in the music industry did realize the threat so they stopped producing the burners for cds. But they obviously thought the internet wasn't going to take off like it did because they did nothing else for almost 20 years.

Now, there are many online sources not only giving the music away, but which allow us to embed the music on webpages.

Now, here's the thing.

I use the embed codes for legitimate purposes and if I can buy a song for $.99... why can't I embed one (such as in a lease agreement) for a webpage direct from the music companies or recording artists?

I would pay $.99 for a song to add to a webpage or to add to an online jukebox to embed on a website because, tbh, it's neat to be able to do this.

However, go to the music companies site and you don't see this being offered. They know people are out there doing it for free and have known for the past several years... you would think at least one of them would realize here's a way to make money offeering people a way to do this legally while we fight to stop the illegal embed operations.

I stopped buying music cd's about 3 years ago because why pay $10 to $20 for a cd that has one song I like on it when I can buy the one song for $.99???

Why can't the music industry figure this out as even Walmart and other retailers are having a difficult time selling music disc's in a discount bin for $5 a disc?

Why... because the music industry has no common sense or business sense anymore if they ever had any to begin with.

Groups like Metallica took the lead fighting back but even they eventually gave up so that while many music companies block content on Youtube, Metallica seems to be one of the groups allowing it. The reason? From what I hear from friends in the music biz is that groups initially attacked online piracy but then learned it was the failure of the music industry itself to protect them that was the real culprit so that groups like Metallica stopped their attacks on the end user and began allowing use of their songs to pressure the music industry into doing something about it.

My question is this, would you pay $.99 for legitimate usage to embed a song on a website or add to a music box?

For those of you who want free usage, I'm not talking to you as this has nothing to do with you or your views. Musicians have a legitimate right to make money from their talent and music companies have a right to make money representing them or selling music having bought such distribution rights from recording artists.

I am addressing those of us who would pay for this right to legally use the music in an effort to put the idea out there since apparently the music industry is not mentally capable of coming up with the idea on it's own.


Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • s. varga 2013/07/21 23:42:52
    I Think...
    s. varga
    At first I thought "YES, I would pay $.99/song for embedding rights", but now that I think about it...

    Last January, I made a "Top 212 songs of 2012" list that would have loved to embed. While I'm used to getting my music from legal sources like Amazon.com, Xbox Music, and iTunes, there's no way I would be willing to pay $210 to embed the full song list. I would gladly pay extra for embedding rights thru my monthly Spotify subscription, but a $.99 per song charge could add up pretty quickly. Plus, even if a per song charge was established, I'm pretty sure the music industry would still attempt to kill/extort from/monetize embedding via Youtube or other services.
  • LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH 2012/06/08 21:34:54
    I would pay $.99 per song to legally embed the music.
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    I WOULD PAY!
  • Somkey the Hores 2012/06/04 09:38:19
    I Think...
    Somkey the Hores
    NO!
  • sd *TROUBLE* 2012/06/04 08:46:19
    I think I should be allowed to do it without paying
    sd *TROUBLE*
    Pay money to (essentially) market and advertise their music? lol GURL NO.
    That's worse then old navy expecting me to pay $20 for a t-shirt plastered with their ugly ass logo.
    But you know, you do have a valid point. Just like there are obviously many people out there who still buy music despite being able to obtain it for free, there would be people who would be willing to pay to embed music, despite being able to do it for free elsewhere. Its quite surprising all the money hungry labels haven't caught on to this fact.

    While charging people to be able to embed songs would be smart on the label's part, I still think its dumb. Like I said before, we'd be paying to essentially market and advertise their music, and that just doesn't feel right to me.

    Musicians and labels just need to realize that the game is changing. Like it or not, its changing. Piracy is NEVER going to go away. And instead of trying to make it go away to no avail, they should instead be brainstorming ways that they could use this to their advantage.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2014/09/22 06:14:17

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals