The next time I go to the dentist, after they've filled three of my teeth, I will thank them for their labour of love and leave. Likewise when I exit a supermarket without paying for the contents of my shopping basket surely they won't object........
But as Des points out, the issue is blurred by some companies who post recordings as a promotional device. And is the pittance paid by Spotify per-play to performers/composers etc much better? Unless you are a global popstar with millions of downloads/streams you'd won't be getting rich on your quarterly spotify cheque!
I recently paid/downloaded an HD video of a musical theatre composer I like from his own website. He had chosen to make available this very high quality product for just $5.00 with the explicit request of purchasers not to post it elsewhere. His rational was that at this price it was a bargain [it absolutely is] and also it helped promote his work. Perhaps that is the way to go.... do companies really need to charge such a high premium for downloads when there is no material cost at all? I am frequently amazed on Amazon (and elsewhere) that relatively low bit-rate mp3 files cost the same as a CD - or sometimes more. Is there an argument for a premium price for the CD and the CD/Studio master equivalent lossless download and a substantially cheaper option for lower rate MP3?
I'll still be buying CD's but I think that's just a result of my age and habits but I might be tempted by some download bargains..... BIS's weekly offerings of specific new releases discounted has tempted me more than once.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb