|
|
Posted by John Hunter on 12/28/06 13:07
Absolutely.
As a result of a better rate for the artist and the choices you outline,
artists would earn more because I'd spend more and their share is greater.
That was my point exactly.
I think the transition is an unsatisfactory "means to an end" argument.
"Humpty Dumpty" <stewart@SpamTrapRemovefireflyuk.net> wrote in message
news:9fidnTyu2pEsMQ_YnZ2dnUVZ8sG3nZ2d@fireflyuk.net...
> Id like to see just about all artists sell their music via their own
> website via a format a bit like allofmp3, so you can choose bitrate,
> format and pay per MB. Say I download an album at ogg128 and pay $5, im
> far more likley to pay the $5 and give it a listen, then if i really like
> the album I can download the full 600mb wav or FLAC for around 80-90% the
> cost I could pickup the same CD in the store. also an automatic refund of
> the $5 I payed for the initial for 128 copy.
>
> So, if this were the case:
>
> It would make great money to the artist/recording company
> It would be very very convienent for me
> No one would be losing out on their royalties
> Artists would make more money
> Music will beome much more popular because its easy to access at the right
> price.
>
> Also if there was a website like www.allmusic.com that linked to the
> artists homepage where one could download their music from, it would be a
> format MUCH MUCH more powerful than allofmp3 could ever be. It really
> could be that easy!
>
> If this was the case id be downloading music all the time!
>
> I think its time for the music industry to take a new direction, beat the
> sharks at their own game. People are good, I think this sort of idea would
> fuel the industry.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|