Posted by Steve Guidry on 11/04/05 21:58

OK. Fine. This argument isn't worth my time.

I think I'll go in the back room now, and gin up some copyrighted content.

And if anyone pirates it, I'll just shoot their balls off with my .357 !

Steve


"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EYNaf.12506$u43.3794@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:d7Naf.4820$m81.4379@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > It's not free at all. Advertisers pay dearly for the music you hear.
And
> > if they didn't, you'd be paying for it directly.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
>
> well yes Steve,
> True advertisers pay dearly for the music we hear for free, but that in
turn
> causes us to like the music and drives up demand, advertisers pay for us
to
> hopefully hear their commercials they stick inbetween the music we are
> listening to for free.
>
> No matter how we slice and dice it, without the free (to us) music
exposure
> we would not be buying the cd's at all!
> We wouldn't even like the new songs unless they forced them on us till we
> got to like them.
>
> So my original point doesn't change, as we shift from a society who
listens
> to radio less and less, I use my iTunes about 90% now and radio maybe 10%
if
> even that, unless I get exposed to new music some other way, I will have
no
> desire (no demand) to buy it or even know about it and tell friends about
> it.
>
> That will hurt music and cd sales much more in general than illegal
> downloading IMHO.
>
> I guess that is why so many of these online music services are pushing for
a
> subscription based (radio model) type scheme nowadays.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>

[Back to original message]