Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Which post are you referring to that shows me being "so against it"? I'm not - I didn't say I was.
|
It's the general sense of your posts that imply (though they don't explicitly state) that downloading is bad because people don't pay and therefore artists are losing money, although you admit there is no proof of this either way.
[quote]I didn't say we should stop free music
Sites like OiNK were/are making money (through donations on Paypal). If you're going to pay for music, then you should pay the artist (directly or indirectly).[/qoute]
Most of the money goes on upkeep of the site and I'd imagine the rest is going to go on lawyers fees.
Quote:
|
It's a real pity Radiohead aren't going to publish the figures they make for that "free" album - it's essentially a the OiNK style of music (free, but you can donate) but it goes to the artist rather than the guy running the website.
|
Oink has no advertisements so this is the only way it can make money, otherwise it's just some guy in his room spending a lot of his own money on a not-for-profit program.
Off-topic but I would like to see in major record stores 'listening stations' again. This is an aold idea but let's give it a 21st Century spin shall we?
Most people nowadays have their own headphones with them most of the time. Have a digital jukebox (like they have in some pubs) so the shopper can listen to whatever album they like for free. This allows shoppers to know what they're getting before hand and if they like it they can go and get it straight away. Alternatively, they could be given the option of downloading a copy straight onto their MP3 player (unprotected versions, obviously) in whatever format they choose.