Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I-IV

[Estranged Reality]

So...people who can afford to buy three cd's a month,should give up those 3 cd's so they can purchase interent access in order to spend more money to purchase music online?

Not if music distribution online is virtually free, which is where it's headed right now. NIN, Radiohead, Saul Williams and Flashbulb's albums were free of charge.

There's an option to donate - but they realize most money is made from tours anyway and the ones retaining money on the actual album sales are just the record executives. You said you're pissed that Trent isn't giving fans an option - but Trent is doing this for his fans - the reason he broke from his record label is because they admitted to him that they were charging close to $40 in Australia for Year Zero because they knew his fans were hardcore enough to pay that much. Trent is cutting out the middle men and delivering product directly to his fans and giving them the option of deciding how they want to receive it.

The telephone is fully integrated into everyday life.I still know people who have to decide between feeding the kids and hooking up the phone.People who had good paying jobs and lost them to plant closures etc. and are still having trouble landing on their feet.

Television is fully integrated into everyday life...not everyone can afford cable.

IMO, if they can't afford these things - they probably shouldn't be spending money on CDs for $16.99 or $18.99. When I was growing up everyone I knew had satellite (before the days of digital cable) with over 70 channels. Then people started getting hundreds of channels and HBO and Showtime and all the other premium channels. My family had 12 local channels and the only "cable" channel we got was TBS. My dad couldn't afford anything more - so we didn't have it.

Likewise, we couldn't afford a computer until 2001 and while all my other friends were getting high-speed Internet I was still stuck on 56k until 2006. When I moved overseas again a few years ago, everything was more expensive because of the dollar rate, so I had even less money to spend, and I couldn't afford to go to stores and spend 18 pounds (almost $35) on one CD. I couldn't ever go out to eat with friends - even at shit places like McDonald's - because of how weak the dollar was. I am not trying to sound like some poor soul, but my point is that my family was not rich growing up, we were single income and moving overseas put constraints on pretty much everything, so I can understand not being able to afford luxuries.

That's why I don't understand the logic in saying people who can barely afford to feed their kids shouldn't be forced to have to buy music online. If they can barely afford what they NEED to live, CDs shouldn't be in their budget. CDs are not a need, they are a "want." If you can't afford them - you don't buy them. I couldn't afford CDs or DVDs for a while and my family couldn't afford premium cable or high speed Internet so we went without it.

Your argument that the industry is moving forward without taking these people into consideration is no different than how the cable TV providers moved forward with digital cable and hi-def presentation - ignoring the customers like my family who were still on their basic 12-channel setup. There will always be people who, because of financial constraints, will be behind the curve on social and technological advances.

If anything, the Internet makes it easier to spend less - you no longer have to buy a $16 CD for one song. You can go on iTunes and buy the one track you want for $0.99.

When I was a kid there was a long period where we were actually quite strapped for money.Very low income.In fact...we lived through those times where we had to choose between food or cable.

When I was 10 and 11 I'd forfeit toys as presents in favour of records.

Thank god my Mom didn't have to have internet access to get me that new Alice Cooper or Stones record for my birthday...I would have been shit out of luck.

That's what I'm saying - if you're put in a position like that - chances are you won't be buying music or other forms of entertainment. Necessities come first - so I don't understand the logic in complaining about the costs of Internet access to download free albums when you're willing to have people spend money they don't have on CDs which, in the long run, are going to end up being a lot more expensive anyway.

I personally enjoy the process of leaving the house and interacting with other human beings as I browse the shelves in a record store.Maybe the notion of staying connected to society on certain levels is becoming old fashioned,but I enjoy it.

But I really have a fucking problem with Trent Reznor and Radiohead telling me I can fuck right off if I can't afford internet access.

Well, Radiohead released their album into stores - the pre-release was just to test the waters.

Full digital distribution is a ways off - and I do think ultimately the music industry will find a way to keep selling physical product in stores, even if it's just a concept of something like a little disk drive you buy and put on your computer.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Estranged Reality

[Zint]

Not if music distribution online is virtually free, which is where it's headed right now. NIN, Radiohead, Saul Williams and Flashbulb's albums were free of charge.

I don't forsee the music industry becoming a complete freebie,but I guess you know something I don't.

The money's in the tours??...who's going to finance these tours if there is no music industry to speak of?

Trent is doing this for his fans - the reason he broke from his record label is because they admitted to him that they were charging close to $40 in Australia for Year Zero because they knew his fans were hardcore enough to pay that much. Trent is cutting out the middle men and delivering product directly to his fans and giving them the option of deciding how they want to receive it (free album, or $5 for an expanded version).

Or.....

Trent is using his fan base as guinea pigs at the moment.It's great that he's released his hotel room noodlings as a test project to see how this self distribution flies.No one is curious as to why it's 4 volumes of instrumentals?

He's testing the waters to see how this flies..before moving ahead with the next proper NIN release.

It's a cutting edge test to determine how to make future recording profitable on his own terms.

Trent the digital Messiah isn't all about doing this for free...you're fooling yourself if you truly believe that.

The Internet is enabling this - sure, some people don't have Internet access, but I doubt many people without Internet would be huge NIN fans... they're kind of a technological-based band and most of their fanbase tend to be the types who are on the Internet.

Soooooo...I guess we weren't really listening to NIN back in '89...who was buying Downward Spiral??..most people I knew back then that went to the sold out NIN show at Maple Leaf Gardens in 1994 for the Downward Spiral tour didn't give a flying fuck about the internet.

hmmmmm...interesting

IMO, if they can't afford these things - they probably shouldn't be spending money on CDs for $16.99 or $18.99.

And they don't...but if their kid wants a cd as a birthday gift,they should be allowed the opportunity of sacrificing and scrimping the money together (even if "grandma" pitches in...know what I mean?)..to go to the store and buy that new cd...without having to have internet access.

I don't believe in music access being an exclusive club.

So, I don't understand the logic in saying people who can barely afford to feed their kids shouldn't be forced to have to buy music online. If they can barely afford anything, CDs shouldn't be in their budget. I couldn't afford CDs or DVDs for a while and my family couldn't afford premium cable or high speed Internet so we went without it. People who can't afford CDs shouldn't be buying them either.

But people who CAN only afford ONE cd...shouldn't have to purchase internet access to get Trent's new work.I see an artist sending a wrong message.

You couldn't afford a computer till 2001?How would you have felt if The Fragile was only made available to people with computers?

"That may seem harsh - but I've had to do that with DVDs - with my bills and car and school costs I can't afford to drop $20 on DVDs anymore, so I don't."

Instead you steal them off the internet....great.

But if I didn't have Internet access, I wouldn't be complaining that iTunes is offering DVD rentals for $3.99 and that traditional rental stores are going out of business. I don't have any business renting or buying movies if I am struggling to make payments, which is what it's like for me right now. I understand it's worse for some people - but that's why I don't think those people should be spending money on CDs anyway...

Again...what about the people who might be able to afford one cd or dvd every month or so.

Personally,I'm hard pressed to find new music worth buying.But when something comes along I want...I'm really bugged by the idea that I would HAVE to have internet access to buy it.

Even if the internet meant nothing to me at all (which...surprisingly,it doesn't to everyone)...should I HAVE to have it in order to buy the new Stones live cd?

I don't think I should...present me with the option of walking down to the store and picking it up,but don't dictate to me that I HAVE to buy it online.Any artist that does that is sending me the message that I mean nothing to them if I'm not on the internet.

If anything, the Internet makes it easier to spend less - you no longer have to buy a $16 CD for one song. You can go on iTunes and buy the one track you want for $0.99.

Awesome!

Bands even moreso no longer have to prove they have an album's worth of good material.

Sounds kind of shallow to me.

That's what I'm saying - if you're put in a position like that - chances are you won't be buying music or other forms of entertainment. Necessities come first - so I don't understand the logic in complaining about the costs of Internet access to download free albums when you're willing to have people spend money they don't have on CDs which, in the long run, are going to end up being a lot more expensive anyway.

Actually...not all of what Trent is currently offering is free.

If I didn't have internet access,I'd have to spend money on even the shittiest of basic connections to get that 5 dollar "deal" from Trent.

oopsy...the price of that awesome deal just went up

Well, Radiohead released their album into stores

Well at least some sensibility is prevailing.

"the pre-release was just to test the waters."

Of what??...how much the fans were willing to "donate?"

Of course it was released into records stores...to make some money.

The music industry isn't going to become a giant freebie.

These artists are testing the waters to see how much money THEY can make without a middle man.

Don't fool yourself..this is far from over.

There still is the expense of making this "free" music.

If the industry heads in the direction you're suggesting (apart from the music for free thing)...it will be the bands that will be deciding how much we pay for their album...always.

(kiss those 6.99 bargain bins goodbye)

Lots of ramifications not being thought about.

Not that I have a problem with artists having control over their music and royalties...but there will be side effects to the fan (again..I really don't see the music industry becoming one giant freebie).

Full digital distribution is a ways off - and I do think ultimately the music industry will find a way to keep selling physical product in stores, even if it's just a concept of something like a little disk drive you buy and put on your computer.

...god forbid I don't have a computer

No music for those without computers...how wonderful.

[JAC185]

The Internet is enabling this - sure, some people don't have Internet access, but I doubt many people without Internet would be huge NIN fans... they're kind of a technological-based band and most of their fanbase tend to be the types who are on the Internet.

Soooooo...I guess we weren't really listening to NIN back in '89...who was buying Downward Spiral??..most people I knew back then that went to the sold out NIN show at Maple Leaf Gardens in 1994 for the Downward Spiral tour didn't give a flying fuck about the internet.

hmmmmm...interesting

I get most of your points Zint (although i'm not sure how far reaching they actually are) but this in particular is not a counterpoint. Those fans from 1994 are not still in 1994. The point is, odds are they've got the internet now when this is happening.

[Zint]

The Internet is enabling this - sure, some people don't have Internet access, but I doubt many people without Internet would be huge NIN fans... they're kind of a technological-based band and most of their fanbase tend to be the types who are on the Internet.

Soooooo...I guess we weren't really listening to NIN back in '89...who was buying Downward Spiral??..most people I knew back then that went to the sold out NIN show at Maple Leaf Gardens in 1994 for the Downward Spiral tour didn't give a flying fuck about the internet.

hmmmmm...interesting

I get most of your points Zint (although i'm not sure how far reaching they actually are) but this in particular is not a counterpoint. Those fans from 1994 are not still in 1994. The point is, odds are they've got the internet now when this is happening.

no...but he's doubting that people without computers are NIN fans

I'm pointing out that damn near an entire generation without computers were NIN fans.

What makes it any different for someone without a computer today to be a NIN fan today?

And for the record,I still know some NIN fans from the Head Like A Hole/TDS era who still don't care about the internet.

..hey,it happens

[Estranged Reality]

Tours have third-party promoters who invest money and that's how they're mainly financed. Many unsigned artists tour, many independent artists tour, and many artists tour out of pocket. Musicians make majority profit on tours, not record sales, because labels have less invested in the actual tours, hence less of the profit goes towards them - and there's more for the musician(s).

Read this for an interesting essay by someone who used to have an active role at a record label and appreciates the changing industry. You seem to have a biased belief that people downloading music are doing it solely to avoid costs or cheat the system - there's more to it than that. A lot more. This article will also clear up your erroneous assumptions about Radiohead's intent - "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing." They weren't telling you that you could "fuck right off" if you didn't have Internet access, but you perceived it as being that way because of your own prejudice against all things Internet-related when it comes to music distribution.

Trent is using his fan base as guinea pigs at the moment.It's great that he's released his hotel room noodlings as a test project to see how this self distribution flies.No one is curious as to why it's 4 volumes of instrumentals?

He's testing the waters to see how this flies..

They referred to it as an experiment themselves, which - by the very definition of the word - implies it is a "test." I don't know why you seem so pleased by the fact that you just explained something very obvious.

Of course he's testing the waters - but as of right now, he's unsigned and will not be releasing albums in the foreseeable future in physical format... he left Interscope. So, he's experimenting to see how online distribution works out for him... I don't know why you feel as if this needs to be pointed out, or why it's a negative thing that you feel he's trying to hide from his fans? This makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

Trent the digital Messiah isn't all about doing this for free...you're fooling yourself if you truly believe that.

I never said that, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so sarcastic. FWIW, I don't think Trent Reznor is some sort of god, and I'm not a massive NIN fan (I didn't even like this "Ghosts" stuff very much).

Soooooo...I guess we weren't really listening to NIN back in '89...who was buying Downward Spiral??..most people I knew back then that went to the sold out NIN show at Maple Leaf Gardens in 1994 for the Downward Spiral tour didn't give a flying fuck about the internet.

hmmmmm...interesting

You're misconstruing what I've said again and trying to make a mockery out of it - but you're clearly missing the point. I never said Nine Inch Nails only came into prominence since the Internet. But they have evolved as a band and Trent is based in the technological age now. NIN isn't as popular in the mainstream as they were in 1994, which can be said for most bands who were once "of their time." (It can also be said for GN'R.)

NIN have become more of a "cult" band - which isn't to say they aren't popular, but they are not nearly as mainstream as they were in 1994 (nor are they courting the same fanbase as back then). PLEASE NOTE - I'm not saying they've dropped fans they had back then - I'm saying back in 1994 NIN was hugely popular and mainstream and everyone was into them as they were party/club favourites (they went on tour with Bowie for god's sake), but nowadays kids in high school aren't listening to NIN the same way as they might have in 1994. NIN has become the goth kids' calling card. They're the sort of band that inspires devotees and many of them are, today, on the Internet; just look at the Year Zero Internet marketing campaign. 16-year-olds of all types may have been listening to NIN in 1994, but nowadays it's more for the goth kids and social outcasts. Don't believe me? Go to a public school, gather all the kids together and ask them if they listen to NIN. See which ones respond "yes." Obviously there are always exceptions to stereotypes and generalizations, but that's why they're called generalizations.

Trent is very active within the online community and most of his die-hard fans know this and, as such, are active there as well. Compare what he's doing to what Axl's doing - that's why I said he's tied into the Internet. It's relative. I never said the Internet made Nine Inch Nails famous.

You can say the same of filmmaker Kevin Smith. The Internet didn't make him, but by now the majority of his fanbase is on the Internet, where Smith has a forum and a blog and a whole fan community build up around his films and career. Why? Because he appeals to a slacker generation, most of whom are Internet slobs. That's why Kevin Smith has an online community and Martin Scorsese doesn't. The NIN fanbase are by nature the sorts of people who will adapt quicker to technological advances; even most of the people who saw them in 1994 probably have Internet access by now, so once again, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to say NIN were famous before the Internet was around. That's a given.

And they don't...but if their kid wants a cd as a birthday gift,they should be allowed the opportunity of sacrificing and scrimping the money together (even if "grandma" pitches in...know what I mean?)..to go to the store and buy that new cd...without having to have internet access.

I don't believe in music access being an exclusive club.

I hate to break it to you zint - but most kids nowadays don't buy CDs - go look at statistics if you don't believe me. Here are some. 10% drop in just one year. It's more likely that kid in your example will be asking for an iPod Nano or an iTunes gift card rather than a CD. Teens aren't buying as many CDs and the number of teens buying CDs has been dropping vastly every year. At the rate of decline right now, in five years no teens will be buying CDs. This will fit in with industry analysts' recent predictions that in five years CDs will become hobby items.

That's why CDs chains are shutting down - didn't Virgin and Tower Records just close? Children are the way of the future and children don't buy CDs anymore. It's become an outdated format, like it or not, and so claiming kids are going to ask for CDs for birthdays or holidays doesn't make much sense; one industry manager (forget which record label it was, Sony maybe?) recently said CDs will become collector's items like vinyl within the next couple years (this was right around when analysts started saying the same thing). All you have to do is look at CD sales statistics - and demographics of ages of those buying them - and you'll see that.

"But people who CAN only afford ONE cd...shouldn't have to purchase internet access to get Trent's new work.I see an artist sending a wrong message."

Trent is one artist and the album he released onto the Internet isn't even a "real" album - it's instrumental stuff for die-hard fans that he's only putting out there as an experiment. Radiohead released their album into stores, and so did MGMT after they posted theirs online. It'll be a bit longer until all albums go directly to the Internet, and the industry may have found a way to avoid this by the time it gets that far. They'll find a way somehow of adapting.

And as I said before - most people in America have computers in their households and most Americans have Internet access - and for record labels, that's all that matters. If they see more profit in Internet sales through venues like iTunes (which may very well shape the future rather than artist distribution like Reznor's tactics), that's what will happen. Amazon's MP3 service just opened and is apparently doing extremely well. I was surprised to hear my 50-something professor yesterday mention how much better iTunes is than having to pay $20 for a CD because you can just download the tracks you want for a buck. He also noted the fact that most people will prefer the ease and assurance of LEGALLY buying a track for $1 in good quality rather than going on a software like Limewire and illegally downloading it. Your worry that illegal downloaders are somehow going to stop all monetary flow to the industries isn't merited; as the shift occurs, many people are going to start using legal venues to purchase MP3s/music files online.

"That may seem harsh - but I've had to do that with DVDs - with my bills and car and school costs I can't afford to drop $20 on DVDs anymore, so I don't."

Instead you steal them off the internet....great.

No, I don't steal them off the Internet - I have over 600 DVDs, all purchased legally, many of them box sets over $40. That's where my money from my jobs went when I was younger. That was my hobby - some people collect baseball cards or go watch sports all the time or whatever. I wasn't into that - I was a movie buff so I've been buying DVDs since I first got a DVD player in 2001.

I have cut back on buying these now that I have bills - but I never said, or implied, that I illegally download films. I prefer having physical copies of films because the quality is significantly better than an .AVI file and you get bonus content most of the time. MP3s are a bit different. For me, the quality isn't noticeable enough to make a difference, it's easier to organize albums in a digital library, you can make easy playlists, have instant access to CDs instead of having to search for them... that's why I buy CDs and rip them to my hard drive and basically never touch the physical CD ever again unless I'm in my car or something. Digital music is much easier for me and I far prefer it.

But I don't appreciate being told I "steal" movies with a great amount of sarcasm when, in fact, I don't.

Personally,I'm hard pressed to find new music worth buying.But when something comes along I want...I'm really bugged by the idea that I would HAVE to have internet access to buy it.

I don't think it will come to that for a while. But I think our entire society is going to blend together with some form of the Internet in the years to come. The Internet as we know it won't even exist anymore - we won't be using computers and monitors, it'll just be something connected to most outlets. More so than telephones and TVs - it's going to become fully integrated. You mentioned social interaction - Borders is opening public "Internet" stores where you basically go in and, for free, you can do shopping online and go on sites like iTunes and buy music. So - if you don't have Internet at home - stores like these are moving forward. And if you prefer to have social interaction - there you go. Who knows - in twenty years music stores may be virtual libraries you walk into where you can browse virtually and choose music you want and pay to download them direct to disk or whatever we're using as storage units by then. It's hard to deny, though, that daily technology is advancing to the point where it's already becoming more than just luxury.

Awesome!

Bands even moreso no longer have to prove they have an album's worth of good material.

Sounds kind of shallow to me.

It has nothing to do with bands - it has to do with consumer demand. You're basing this on your preconceived notion of what an album is. That may very well change. Albums may no longer be a grouping of songs in the future. Bands may at whim just publish single songs online. Singles without albums to promote (Beck did this recently, and it was a great song). Will it take some of the fun out of the idea of what an album really is? Yeah. Will it ruin artistic ideas, "concept" albums, etc.? Yep.

But bands have been putting out shitty albums with loads of filler for years - I may as well be able to pay $0.99 for the one good track. Good concept albums and the real idea of "albums" as works of art haven't been around since the '70s, or maybe the '80s with Elvis Costello and Springsteen. But after the late '80s came about alternative radio and rap started pushing the singles and artists started slacking.

Personally, I'm a completest so I prefer having full albums even if the rest of the tracks suck - but many people aren't like that, and I don't think it will encourage artists to skimp on quality so much as it will encourage artists to focus more on making good singles and releasing them separately from albums.

"the pre-release was just to test the waters." Of what??...how much the fans were willing to "donate?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Distribution

Yorke at one point hinted at the possibility of releasing singles or EPs rather than an album.[30] However, he ruled out Internet-only distribution because he felt some fans would not have the technological means to obtain the new material.[5] Yorke, commenting on the band's relationship with EMI, said, "We have no record contract as such...What we would like is the old EMI back again, the nice genteel arms manufacturers who treated music [as] a nice side project who weren't too bothered about the shareholders. Ah well, not much chance of that."[31] Shortly before the band began writing new songs for the album, Yorke told Time, "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'Fuck you' to this decaying business model."[32] Radiohead retained ownership of the album recordings and song compositions for In Rainbows. The download and "discbox" versions of the album are self-released by the band, for the CD release, the band is licensing the music to record labels.[33] The album's licensing agreements for all releases continue to be managed by the band's publisher, Warner Chappell Music Publishing.[33]

These artists are testing the waters to see how much money THEY can make without a middle man.

Of course - that's the entire point.

Record companies retain full rights to music other people make - and gain majority profits from these works - and they determine what kind of profits artists retain. These bands are attempting to test the limits of the Internet to see whether they can allow fans to decide how much they want to pay for music they enjoy, thereby removing the middle man. Sorta like Denzel in American Gangster. Product direct to the people - better quality, cheaper costs, more reliability. Record companies don't actually give a shit about the quality of the music they're pushing - if they did, Vanilla Ice never would have existed. They care about money. And while Trent and Radiohead certainly care about money, too, they also have artistic credibility and that matters to them as well - so their efforts are, by very definition, experiments.

Don't fool yourself..this is far from over.

There still is the expense of making this "free" music.

If the industry heads in the direction you're suggesting (apart from the music for free thing)...it will be the bands that will be deciding how much we pay for their album...always.

(kiss those 6.99 bargain bins goodbye)

I never said it was over and I never said music is going to start being distributed for free online. I was speaking about this circumstance and, in context, about online distribution shifting this way. I said online distribution is virtually free right now and is headed that way thanks to these artists, but that's a hypothetical situation with these artists. My point is that it's going to be a lot cheaper, even through venues like iTunes, for most people to download music.

My opinion is that the traditional industry is dying (that's not opinion actually - it's fact). My real opinion is that the industry is scrambling to find their foothold in a digital age and right now iTunes is leading. Amazon's MP3 service is taking off as well. All of this points towards digital distribution - through record companies, not direct from artists.

What will people without Internet do? Well, within the next few years I think even the poorest people in America will be connected in some form to the Internet - and if they aren't at home, places like Borders' new stores that I mentioned will start opening up. I'm skeptical about how popular those will be, but I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes Digital Stores open where you can go in, hook up your iPod and download music right there. Put in money or swipe a credit card, connect your iPod, choose the music you want. Those would probably be very popular in large cities and urban areas.

Oh, and yeah - I'm aware not everyone has an iPod - I'm using this as one example, because as of right now, iTunes is the leader in digital music downloading and iPods are the highest-selling MP3 devices.

But if you want to argue, "Not everyone has MP3 players" - well, not everyone had CD players for a while, either, but when the companies stopped making vinyl, people made the transition pretty fast, didn't they? Same for VHS vs. DVD. People adjust to change. I haven't heard anyone complain, "Man, I wish they still made VHS tapes, because I don't have enough money to buy a DVD player!" As MP3 players become the new standard for playback (as they are already becoming), prices will continue to drop, and CD players will go by way of VHS.

he's doubting that people without computers are NIN fans

Wrong again. Read my post.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Estranged Reality

[Rebel Yell]

well i ordered the 2-CD option....when i got my downlaod link it didnt finish dowloading, now the site is down

i guess ill have to wait 'til i actually get the CDs to hear it

Your download link should will still work. Try downloading it again.

[Zint]

Tours have third-party promoters who invest money and that's how they're mainly financed. Many unsigned artists tour, many independent artists tour, and many artists tour out of pocket. Musicians make majority profit on tours, not record sales, because labels have less invested in the actual tours, hence less of the profit goes towards them - and there's more for the musician(s).

Record compnaies used to invest in tours.Tours translated into record sales.But I can understand if that's not the case anymore,if the internet has killed the industry.

Read this for an interesting essay by someone who used to have an active role at a record label and appreciates the changing industry. You seem to have a biased belief that people downloading music are doing it solely to avoid costs or cheat the system

I've never stated that is the sole intention.But I'm hard pressed to exclude it as motivation.

Anyway,read the article.It was quite good.Now I know where are your quotes come from.

Seemed to me what motivaited some guy claiming to be a record exec (and I like his qualifications..."I went to a lot of lunches where a lot of money was spent"...uh huh ok) was finally motivated to speak when Oink,his favourite site for downloading new cd's before they came out for sale...got shut down.

But it was a good read...so the decline of the record industry was pioneeerd by some college Weezer geeks...awesome!

This article will also clear up your erroneous assumptions about Radiohead's intent - "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing." They weren't telling you that you could "fuck right off" if you didn't have Internet access but you perceived it as being that way because of your own prejudice against all things Internet-related when it comes to music distribution.

You're right...let me rephrase that.

Radiohead was telling me that if I or my family (or if I was 15...my parents) couldn't afford a computer or internet access,I was a second rate fan who wasn't quite as important as their "digital" fans.

I can just right fucking wait for the cd to hit the record store when they get around to it.

Personally,I'm all for all fans being treated on an equal basis when it comes to access to new material.

But hey...

Thanks for clearing up that misconception for me,I get it now.

They referred to it as an experiment themselves, which - by the very definition of the word - implies it is a "test." I don't know why you seem so pleased by the fact that you just explained something very obvious.

I was acting pleased with myself??...well thanks for pointing that out to me.

The fact,I had no idea this Ghosts project was coming out.Having been paying attention to Trent lately.

The only info I have on it is what I got from this thread.I haven't looked into it further.

I figured the rest out on my own...didn't take long.

But thanks for confirming I was right on the money.

You're misconstruing what I've said again and trying to make a mockery out of it - but you're clearly missing the point. I never said Nine Inch Nails only came into prominence since the Internet. But they have evolved as a band and Trent is based in the technological age now. NIN isn't as popular in the mainstream as they were in 1994, which can be said for most bands who were once "of their time." (It can also be said for GN'R.)

NIN have become more of a "cult" band - which isn't to say they aren't popular, but they are not nearly as mainstream as they were in 1994 (nor are they courting the same fanbase as back then). PLEASE NOTE - I'm not saying they've dropped fans they had back then - I'm saying back in 1994 NIN was hugely popular and mainstream and everyone was into them as they were party/club favourites (they went on tour with Bowie for god's sake), but nowadays kids in high school aren't listening to NIN the same way as they might have in 1994. NIN has become the goth kids' calling card. They're the sort of band that inspires devotees and many of them are, today, on the Internet; just look at the Year Zero Internet marketing campaign. 16-year-olds of all types may have been listening to NIN in 1994, but nowadays it's more for the goth kids and social outcasts. Don't believe me? Go to a public school, gather all the kids together and ask them if they listen to NIN. See which ones respond "yes." Obviously there are always exceptions to stereotypes and generalizations, but that's why they're called generalizations.

Trent is very active within the online community and most of his die-hard fans know this and, as such, are active there as well. Compare what he's doing to what Axl's doing - that's why I said he's tied into the Internet. It's relative. I never said the Internet made Nine Inch Nails famous.

You can say the same of filmmaker Kevin Smith. The Internet didn't make him, but by now the majority of his fanbase is on the Internet, where Smith has a forum and a blog and a whole fan community build up around his films and career. Why? Because he appeals to a slacker generation, most of whom are Internet slobs. That's why Kevin Smith has an online community and Martin Scorsese doesn't. The NIN fanbase are by nature the sorts of people who will adapt quicker to technological advances; even most of the people who saw them in 1994 probably have Internet access by now, so once again, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to say NIN were famous before the Internet was around. That's a given.

You stated that you highly doubt people without computers are huge NIN fans.

I know lots of people who don't give a fuck about the internet who are (some are in their 20's).

I hate to break it to you zint - but most kids nowadays don't buy CDs - go look at statistics if you don't believe me. Here are some. 10% drop in just one year. It's more likely that kid in your example will be asking for an iPod Nano or an iTunes gift card rather than a CD. Teens aren't buying as many CDs and the number of teens buying CDs has been dropping vastly every year. At the rate of decline right now, in five years no teens will be buying CDs. This will fit in with industry analysts' recent predictions that in five years CDs will become hobby items.

That's why CDs chains are shutting down - didn't Virgin and Tower Records just close? Children are the way of the future and children don't buy CDs anymore. It's become an outdated format, like it or not, and so claiming kids are going to ask for CDs for birthdays or holidays doesn't make much sense; one industry manager (forget which record label it was, Sony maybe?) recently said CDs will become collector's items like vinyl within the next couple years (this was right around when analysts started saying the same thing). All you have to do is look at CD sales statistics - and demographics of ages of those buying them - and you'll see that.

Just got off the phone with my two nephews who are coming up to hang out this weekend.Both huge NIN fans...we were all lucky enough to see the two NIN club shows on the With Teeth tour.

We also saw the arena tour in Toronto and London.

The older of the two is trying his best to collect all the vinyl and cd's and he's doing a pretty good job of it.He's really into his collection and displays it proudly.How the fuck does he add a digital download to that?...on a cd-r?...wow,awesome!

Oh but hey...niether of them can even download it yet,the family computer is broken and they can't afford to get it fixed yet.Their mother fell and broke her ankle and has been off work and their Dad has expensive theraoy bills from the auto accident where a drunk doctor smashed head on into him and sent him through the windshield and shattered both his legs.

Getting the computer fixed is a bit of pipedream at the moment...so downloading this awesome new NIn project isn't happening for these huge NIN fans.And they can't even go to the store and pick it up.

They're pretty bummed about feeling like second rate fans to Trent at the moment.Sure they can download it from a friend or score it when they get up here...byut they see the principal of the thing and kind of agree it sucks.

I tend to agree with them.

Trent is one artist and the album he released onto the Internet isn't even a "real" album - it's instrumental stuff for die-hard fans that he's only putting out there as an experiment. Radiohead released their album into stores, and so did MGMT after they posted theirs online. It'll be a bit longer until all albums go directly to the Internet, and the industry may have found a way to avoid this by the time it gets that far. They'll find a way somehow of adapting.

And as I said before - most people in America have computers in their households and most Americans have Internet access - and for record labels, that's all that matters. If they see more profit in Internet sales through venues like iTunes (which may very well shape the future rather than artist distribution like Reznor's tactics), that's what will happen. Amazon's MP3 service just opened and is apparently doing extremely well. I was surprised to hear my 50-something professor yesterday mention how much better iTunes is than having to pay $20 for a CD because you can just download the tracks you want for a buck. He also noted the fact that most people will prefer the ease and assurance of LEGALLY buying a track for $1 in good quality rather than going on a software like Limewire and illegally downloading it. Your worry that illegal downloaders are somehow going to stop all monetary flow to the industries isn't merited; as the shift occurs, many people are going to start using legal venues to purchase MP3s/music files online.

So what this great technology breakthrough breaks down to is convenience?

This hassle free system has the heart and soul of a mud puddle.

Dude...I get what this is all about.

If it comes to the point where I have to sink to the level of downlOAding a bunch of ones and zeros to acquire new music,then I guess I'll have to.

What the digital generation seems to be not realizing is that it is sucking the fun right out of rock and roll.

Fun...you know....kinda what it's supposed to be all about at the root of it?

I'm just glad I got to experience the time when you got home and opened up the new Alice Cooper record to find it wrapped in panties.

It was way cool,it was loads of fun...cool little thank yous for buying their new record.

It spoke volumes about their image and what they were trying to respresnt with their new record.

Enjoy your digital download stores...sounds fucking boring and monotonous to me.

No, I don't steal them off the Internet - I have over 600 DVDs, all purchased legally, many of them box sets over $40. That's where my money from my jobs went when I was younger. That was my hobby - some people collect baseball cards or go watch sports all the time or whatever. I wasn't into that - I was a movie buff so I've been buying DVDs since I first got a DVD player in 2001.

I have cut back on buying these now that I have bills - but I never said, or implied, that I illegally download films. But I don't appreciate being told I "steal" movies with a great amount of sarcasm when, in fact, I don't.

My mistake...I had you confused with someone who stated at this forum that they had Rob Zombie's Halloween before it was even in the theatre....scored it off the internet.That person proceeded to write about how cheesey it was.

That person has also discussed movie torrents...and I think,even provided links for people to find illegal downloads.

My mistake for mixing that person up with you...please accept my sincere apology.

I doubt many people without Internet would be huge NIN fans...

they exist

...as secondary fans apparantly

[highvoltage]

Read this for an interesting essay by someone who used to have an active role at a record label and appreciates the changing industry. You seem to have a biased belief that people downloading music are doing it solely to avoid costs or cheat the system

Sorry, but i've read that article and 99% of it is total BS. His reasoning is incredibly shonky - conveniently forgetting that people at the top of every big business make enough money to lead a rockstar lifestyle. Just because the guys that Run Sony drive Porsches doesn't give me the right to break into their factories and steal a shiny new LCD.

I do download plenty of music illegally (I buy a lot of albums too, paid for the new NIN album too), so i'm a hypocrite - but I recognise that what i'm doing is wrong and I don't attempt to make excuses for it or try to justify it. Stealing music is as morally wrong as stealing something else... no matter which way you try to slice it.

@ Zint - can't your nephews use a library computer to order the physical cd's for $10? Just a suggestion for them so they don't have to wait until theirs is fixed bud.

[Estranged Reality]

I do download plenty of music illegally (I buy a lot of albums too, paid for the new NIN album too), so i'm a hypocrite - but I recognise that what i'm doing is wrong and I don't attempt to make excuses for it or try to justify it.

Downloading music is morally wrong and I am not pretending otherwise, and I never said I agree fully with all of the author's points; I was moreso referring to his comments about the commercial and artistic benefits of a website like OiNK, which is driven by people who love music rather than people who just invest in the artists who will have larger returns for the companies. I'm not saying the music industry should crash and burn and music should be free for everyone. I roll my eyes when people start arguing that the RIAA doesn't have a right to enforce copyright laws protecting music. Bottom line is - those labels own the rights and you don't, so if you download it without paying for it, it's wrong.

By the way, I'm not one of those idealists who act like this way of business on behalf of the record execs is "shocking" - it's understandable that people who do that for a living would want as much money as possible, just as you or I would if we were in a similar position - but that doesn't change the fact that the industry became very bloated and wasteful by the mid-'90s and IMO artistically speaking there were very little going on of interest. The Internet, if nothing else, has enabled really talented artists to make their work known to the world in ways that weren't possible before - whether it's MySpace, YouTube, OiNK or whatever. It's just easier to find stuff you like, get recommendations and discover new stuff that you can then go out and buy. That's why I liked OiNK - because the people on that site really loved music - not because I was trying to cheat artists out of money.

My mistake...I had you confused with someone who stated at this forum that they had Rob Zombie's Halloween before it was even in the theatre....scored it off the internet.That person proceeded to write about how cheesey it was.

So, because I downloaded one film - it's okay for you to make a very negative - and false - generalization about me and say I "steal" all my movies? It wasn't even said in a very nice fashion - it was quite rude and to be honest I was pretty offended by the tone and implication of your comment. I don't really understand where it's coming from.

I downloaded the early cut of "Halloween" last year and a collection of foreign films by Eric Rohmer that weren't available on DVD at the time. They (the Rohmer short films) were free domain, anyway, so it wasn't illegal to download them. Those were, to my memory, the only films I downloaded last year. If there were any others - which I doubt - I honestly don't remember, and I usually remember what I've seen.

BTW, I also later paid to see the final cut of "Halloween" for the sake of comparison, so I didn't cheat Rob out of his money (and his film opened #1 and has a sequel coming, so the bootlegs apparently didn't harm sales). To my knowledge, I didn't download any other films last year. I'm not justifying that I downloaded it - yes, it was illegal - but to make a generalization from that, to say that I steal all my films, is rubbish. I'm not a member of any private torrent sites for film, and your claim that I was telling people which torrent sites to use for movies is false - I'm not a member of any. I also never post links publicly on the forum to any copyrighted material (in terms of downloading), so I really don't appreciate that comment either. I have, in the past, directed people towards links for music and a couple people asked me where to find Halloween - but that's different from posting links for everyone to see and encouraging people to download these files. I'm sure if good friends of yours asked for TWAT, Better, IRS, CD, etc. you'd help them out - but you wouldn't post them on the public forum. Well, I'm the same way. I've never posted leaks on the forum and likewise I've never linked to illegal torrent sites directly or anything of that sort.

I never said you can't enjoy your CD collection, and to be honest, I get the feeling that the reason you're acting this way is because you feel as if I'm somehow acting "above" you or implying that what you do is silly and outdated. I never said you shouldn't buy CDs. If that's what you enjoy doing, do it. I said that I prefer a digital library for my music, because of the reasons stated above. I'm not even arguing about piracy vs. legal purchase. I'm talking about CDs vs. digital music. There is, believe it or not, a huge difference. So I think you're misinterpreting much of what I'm saying because you think I'm trying to support illegal downloading. I'm not. I think it IS contributing to the decline of the industry right now, but on the flipside: it's inevitable, and yes, it's the Internet's fault, but it also boils down to many other factors - the generation we're in, the industry's (lack of) response, the convenience, the fact that right now iTunes is the only dominant legal digital download service... though that is changing with Amazon.

You feel offended that Trent is offering this to Internet fans ahead of other fans - well, what do you expect him to do? He's trying to experiment with the Internet - so, people who have it get that advantage. I'm not going to complain because rich people can get VIP passes at NIN shows and I can't because I'm poorer than they are. Some people get perks and some people don't. That's just the way the world works and while I can understand being frustrated, I think you're making a MUCH bigger deal out of this than is warranted. It was just a nice notion for fans and Rebel Yell said Trent is releasing the album into stores soon anyway, so whatever.

But there's a good discussion to be had here and I was quite respectful of what you had to say, so I just don't really get why you're acting so upset towards me. If I offended you - I apologize - but nothing I said was intended to be disparaging of your lifestyle. If you enjoy collecting albums - physical copies, I mean - then that's fine. All I'm giving is my own personal input here, as someone who personally appreciates what technology has had to offer. Are there down sides? Yes, but there were also down sides to tapes, CDs, and DVDs when they came out. Every time a new technology/format emerges, people get nostalgic. People still talk about collecting vinyl records. And it's totally understandable. But that doesn't mean new advances are completely negative, either.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Estranged Reality

[RJ88]

this is an awesome album

[Zint]

I'm a bit wiped after the Ace show...I'll read and respond to all this tomorrow.

[madison]

Did anyone buy the ultra-deluxe edition while it was up for sale?

Check out the price on ebay now.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nine-Inch-Nails-Ghosts-...1QQcmdZViewItem

[Estranged Reality]

I'm a bit wiped after the Ace show...I'll read and respond to all this tomorrow.

I had posted some photos but it'll probably be better if I just PM them to you. You don't need to respond to my last post - I think we both made our points and probably aren't going to change how we feel and this will just continue endlessly - all I really wanted was to get on the same page with you, because I think you misinterpreted some of what I was saying in terms of digital distribution as me supporting illegal downloading. I wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't trying to insult you or anything, and at the same time I wanted you to know your assumptions about my downloading habits are almost entirely false, because I feel like that's where a lot of the sarcasm/tension is coming from. So, basically - let's agree to disagree on this one and hold no hard feelings towards each other? I think that would be best because I really don't want there to be any rift between us. I'm afraid if we keep going back and forth it'll just go way off topic and resolve nothing. Anyway, I hope your show was fun; I'm wiped myself from a long day and getting up in five hours with 3 hours of sleep last night isn't looking too promising, so I'm hitting the sack now. Peace.

[Zint]

Did anyone buy the ultra-deluxe edition while it was up for sale?

Check out the price on ebay now.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nine-Inch-Nails-Ghosts-...1QQcmdZViewItem

yikes!!

[Estranged Reality]

Did anyone buy the ultra-deluxe edition while it was up for sale?

Check out the price on ebay now.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nine-Inch-Nails-Ghosts-...1QQcmdZViewItem

Ouch.

I guess that would have been a wise investment...

I'm really off to bed now I think. I hope.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Estranged Reality

[SylvesterStallone]

Jesus ER, I pity the fool who tries to argue with you.

[Ant]

I read on digg.com that he's already made almost a million bucks off of this little project, and that's without the label skimming off however much they usually do.

[FunkyMonk]

Wow...albums full of NiN instrumentals? Booorrrring.

[gunsguy]

this is not typical NIN thats for sure but i like it

Gunsguy

[Martoine]

I read on digg.com that he's already made almost a million bucks off of this little project, and that's without the label skimming off however much they usually do.

trent is free now...

Year Zero Remixed fulfilled his record deal and now he is labelless...

so more money for him

[RJ88]

I read on digg.com that he's already made almost a million bucks off of this little project, and that's without the label skimming off however much they usually do.

trent is free now...

Year Zero Remixed fulfilled his record deal and now he is labelless...

so more money for him

all the power too him

it's too bad Axl couldnt do this

[Rebel Yell]

I read on digg.com that he's already made almost a million bucks off of this little project, and that's without the label skimming off however much they usually do.

Yeah, and that was only counting the ultra-deluxe edition purchases.

This argument that it's unfair to poor people to let everyone else buy an album on the Internet before it's released in stores doesn't make much sense. All albums leak before they hit stores. All this is doing is setting up a way for people to pay money to download the "leak," rather than being "forced" to steal it.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Rebel Yell

[Zint]

I wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't trying to insult you or anything

Fair enough,I didn't feel you were trying to post above me,but some of it came across to me with that "grandpa's afraid of the bank machine" vibe to it.So if I read into that wrong,my mistake.

and at the same time I wanted you to know your assumptions about my downloading habits are almost entirely false, because I feel like that's where a lot of the sarcasm/tension is coming from.

I think my mindset on you,in regards to this area of conversation was a conglomeration of thoughts based on "the new Rush cd leaked on OINK" "the new BACH cd leaked on OINK" lumped in with talk about movies (or,A movie I guess) that wasn't even out yet.It didn't quite paint a picture of you being a puritan downloading angel....from an at-a-glance perspective.

But I apologize for any misconceptions I may have brought forth in regards to your downloading habits.

So, basically - let's agree to disagree on this one and hold no hard feelings towards each other?

No hard feelings on my end,and there wouldn't have been.I've been around enough real life conversations (plied with booze at times) that take heated turns...but everyone's cool the next day.I don't see this any differently.

ffrank and I fucking going at it quite heavy at times,but he always PM's me and says,hey man,no hard feelings,I still think you're one of the coolest people around here.And I feel the same way towards him.

But we still rip each other's throats out every once in a while....in the name of good conversation.

I'd rather see a conversation get heated and actually go somewhere than vote on a poll about my favourite Axl hair style.

I don't "pity the fool that dares argue with you" as someone stated...rather,I applaud the person who takes the time to think about what you're saying and responds accordingly,perhaps making you think about different aspects of the topic as well.

ffrank pushes me (sometimes) to really think about an issue and have a damn good answer.

You've done the same to me on this issue and I did really have to think about it based on what you offered up as information.

I'm not really waxing nostalgic on cd's...I'm down with the concept of technological progress.

I lived through 8-tracks and I didn't decry their downfall!

Cassettes either for that matter.

In fact...if the option of cd or vinyl had remained intact,I would have stuck with vinyl,dabbling in cd for select releases for use in the car etc..

I say that for many reasons...sonics,fun,presentation,some sentimentality,among other things.

I was pretty much forced into cd's...and it sounds like I'll be pretty much forced into digital dowloading one day.

Personally,I find the notion cold and inpersonal...and pretty much boring.

I see flaws and repercussions in the big picture...(if bands are going to make their money off of concerts and not music,I forsee concert prices going even higher for example).

I'm just not comfortable with my music collection being invisible...but that's just me.

I think that would be best because I really don't want there to be any rift between us.

I don't either...again,to me it was just heated discussion.Sorry if I insulted you,wasn't my intention.

I do enjoy many of your posts and hold your movie knowledge and reviews/opinions in high regard.

Anyway, I hope your show was fun

It was waaaay fun.

Fun is an essential element in music for me...I think that's partially why this digital download aspect isn't going over well with me.I'd gladly retain the fun elements of new releases over convenience any day.

I'm not against the notion of downloading one song for .99 by the way.

I lived through the age of the 45.

Back then .99 got you your fav new single AND a song on the flip side (sometimes two on the flipside).If you were really lucky,it came in a cool collectable sleeve...which appreciated in value over the years.

I just find stuff like that fun.

I read an article today,the topic was "Radiohead makes technological advances".I was inspired to read it (as a direct result of our conversation...because you actually inspired me to take a closer look at the situation).The article stated that Radiohead now consider the word "album" to be a verb.

That disturbs me...not on a serious level,just from a "man...the joy and fun of collecting music is just having the marrow sucked right out of it".

And I guess we'll be able to download artwork to go with new digital download releases,as some have suggested.

That's fine...but it also makes me think that ink ain't cheap...so that aspect of a new release is falling in our laps as an expense the band doesn't have to worry about.

I keep noticing little areas where I see the cost of this inexpensive music through downloads being presented to the fans...at the fans' expense.

But hey...onward technology...if I railed against all progress I'd still be gaming on Pong and Intellivison

I'll stop digressing.

Thanks for presenting the other perspective of digital downloads for me,I have a clearer picture of the issue now and why it works for you.

cheers!

Edited March 7, 2008 by zint61

[Estranged Reality]

I appreciate the response and am glad things are cool between us.

I think my mindset on you,in regards to this area of conversation was a conglomeration of thoughts based on "the new Rush cd leaked on OINK" "the new BACH cd leaked on OINK" lumped in with talk about movies (or,A movie I guess) that wasn't even out yet.It didn't quite paint a picture of you being a puritan downloading angel....from an at-a-glance perspective.

I do admit to having downloaded quite a few pre-release "leaks" - so I am guilty of downloading music. But I often bought the CDs later, which doesn't validate downloading to begin with - but I wasn't just downloading and then not buying the actual product for most of them. (I have to say though, I don't remember the Bach CD leaking. I think it wasn't posted until the Tuesday it came out, because I remember being surprised that there was no leak for it in advance.)

I think part of the reason I was into that for a while was just the excitement/thrill of hearing an album before most people - but it doesn't really interest me that much anymore. Off the top of my head, I did download the new Nick Cave CD last week but I plan on buying that the day it comes out. Other than that, I can't recall many albums I've listened to before the release date lately. And as I said before, I don't download movies ever and in fact I think Halloween was the last time I did download a movie without paying for it.

I've spent tons of money on buying DVD box sets for TV shows and all my friends tell me, "Just go to TV Links and watch them for free!" (Or other websites like that.) I really hate it. I tried to watch an episode of Sopranos online once and couldn't stand it, shut it off and went out and bought the DVD.

I'm just not comfortable with my music collection being invisible...but that's just me.

And I can understand this - I feel the same way about DVDs and hope they don't transition into downloading as well, as people are predicting will happen soon. People already download movies but overall DVD sales are still very strong. But it's being predicted that instead of Blu-Ray, people are going to start using faster Internet connections to download hi-def movies in minutes and film will move digital the same way as music is. I guess with fiber optic cables and everything, that will start to become more popular than it is now. But I like having the "real thing."

The only reason I never got into collecting CDs the same way I collect movies is mainly the packaging. If I had enough money, I would definitely collect vinyl. But the general design etc. of CDs never appealed to me much, so although they were all I had until I got an MP3 player in 2005, and I kind of grew up with them, I've never really appreciated them as much as other formats.

I do think downloading is also a bit of an addiction - when you can have an album in an instant at the click of a mouse and you find a site like OiNK that has pretty much every album ever made on it, it's very very tempting to go crazy. So I think I fell into that a bit for a while - I used to check that site almost daily, and nowadays I'm not really into it all as much.

And I guess we'll be able to download artwork to go with new digital download releases,as some have suggested.

One thing I do like about iTunes is that it collects artworks for albums on your computer and you can flip through a virtual "library" of cover art. Like this:

But yeah, it's not the same as holding the real thing with liner notes and all.

I think ultimately digital distribution for music is going to benefit real music fans the most - and also hurt them the most - for reasons we've both mentioned. I know a lot of people who love the fact that so much can be done with digital distribution, but at the same time - many of these people still collect vinyl and/or CDs and hate the idea of being forced to just download everything. One guy I know is a huge CD junkie (I think I mentioned him already) and he has an iPhone and everything but he still buys hundreds of CDs a year and doesn't like the idea of being forced to download everything a few years from now.

Anyways, I'm glad we're sort of on the same page now or whatever and that there's no bad blood. I'd like to write more because it is a good discussion but I tend to ramble

Edited March 7, 2008 by Estranged Reality

[Zint]

@ Zint - can't your nephews use a library computer to order the physical cd's for $10? Just a suggestion for them so they don't have to wait until theirs is fixed bud.

Thanks for the input high..

I'm not sure if ordering things on a public computer is safe.

And I just thought of something,they don't have credit cards or paypal accounts.

Another snag in digital downloading just presented itself to me.

What happens to younger fans who don't have the necessary requirements to order downloads online??

(glad I didn't need to have accounts to buy music when I was 12-13)

As I mentioned earlier,the nephews are coming up tomorrow (for a B Movie marathon)...I'll see about getting this new NIN stuff for them if we get around to it.

cheers