I thought the artical was informitive. It did not tell me anything I did not know. It is good to see someone the industry will listen to say file sharing may have some benifit. That it isn't all bad.
Artist that benifit the most, are extremely tallented and poorly distributed. The reason for the poor distribution is the genre is not popular and their country is not one of the 'in' countries. The music industry run by no tallents can't recognize quality when they hear it. It is impossible to listen to music you can't buy without file sharing.
The music industry only takes notice when one of these 'wacky' bands in some jerk water country makes platnum in 2 months. The greedy pigs realize they lost out and start selling their music. In the US, they know maybe half those sales came from the US and they didn't get their cut.
I really doubt that file sharing has hurt the music industry at all. Most persons have a comfort level as to what they can spend on music. A good deal will get them to spend more no good deals will make them spend less. People that don't buy would NEVER buy. They would listen to the radio to hear free music. It is the radio stations that are hurt the most by file sharing. People that would buy still buy. It doesn't matter if they have a free version. If anything, file sharing encourages music sales. I know I am spending many times what I used to spend on music. I got burnt too many times years back buying a CD to find one good but not great tune and the rest junk. The industry is trying to sell junk for a price that should be reserved for excellent music. I didn't buy much music for more than 10 years becuase the music was not worth the money.
At current prices, the music needs to be great to pay that kind of money. I would NEVER buy without hearing the complete album several times. Like the auto industry, the music industry has priced them selves out of a job.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15 May 2009 8:59
|