Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelet
ok but then there's this.
http://www.heritage.org/research/int...ogy/bg1790.cfm
anyway you're arguing that file sharing serves as art exposure which it just isn't. its art ownership. everything in the world is on youtube these days. hard to believe not a lot of what you've purchased from file sharing couldn't also have been purchased from hearing it on rhapsody, lastfm, or youtube. |
I don't really find what is quoted a problem. Isn't buying an album and not liking it the reason why so many people complain in the first place? It seems to suggest that sampling is going to move people away from bad albums and on to good ones. That is a good thing.
As for the lastfm/youtube thing...certainly this is what I'd be doing if not for filesharing, I guess the reason why I download stuff instead is because it's higher quality and allows me to listen at work.
To be honest I would just really like some kind of actual user-friendly solution. When Napster and OINK were in their heydays a lot of people commented on how they would gladly pay for the service. I mean seriously there are so many albums...out of print stuff, imports, whatever, that just can't be bought unless you're going to pay $50-60 off eBay for it. Furthermore I think a lot of people hate the way the industry is run and will not support it. Since the ridiculous lawsuits started I have not bought any RIAA CDs and will continue to not do so - plus, it is disheartening to know that artists only recieve a few cents from each song download. Furthermore few sites really even have a sensible pricing model - I do love eMusic, but I don't like that I can download three hour-long five-track albums for the same 'price' as a short fifteen-track one.