Queen crest Queenzone

announce hammer to fall (malouf mix)

18 posts Page 2 of 2
Thread

Posts in chronological order

Search forum
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I personally would not pay to download music that I can buy on CD. In my mind 99 cents a track is a rip of. Why would I want to pay $10 for an downloaded album that has not artwork or case? It makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE]

exactly...here in the UK, the price for just a single track can vary from 99p to £2...multiply that by 10 or 12 for a whole album and you come to same conclusion you've reached.
In regards to DVD and region encoding, I *think* future movie disc formats such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will scrap the region encoding. I'm assuming so cos I have heard NOTHING about such a system being on either of their discs.
So, this being said, it si bad business of the record companies to NOT use the technology of the day to say, for instance, to download an obscure song, that has been out of print for 5-10 years?? Or more???

When that record sells again used, who is reaping the benefit then? The record company??? No, the shop owner does.

Dealing with digital files is NO different, and would be a way to increase revenue for those who try to "obey" the law.

There is a vast difference between sharing a song like this, and, say, The Darkness' soon to be released album. Somewhere, in some room, you would think record company execs would figure this out. So that, if I wanted to pay .99 to Hollywood Records for this song, I log on to Hollywood Records, purchase it, and download it.

If I cannot, then sharing like this should be LEGAL, as it is the same as buying it used from Joe Blow's Record Shop.
"Not a fan of the ladies, are you Trebek?" Sean Connery