Started by APK, April 19, 2009, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: judd stephens on April 19, 2009, 10:35:38 PMMaybe it has something to do with relative demand?
Quote from: judd stephens on April 19, 2009, 10:35:38 PMThis is going to veer just a bit off the beaten topic here, but I may have found a way to legally rip off some artists' music, and I don't know what to think of it. Amazon.com's download site is full of artists work that is surprisingly cheap. Many of the download albums go for just 99 cents per song, so if the album is one or 2 long tracks, it's just a buck or two. For example, Brian Eno's Neroli album is just 99 cents. Many of Thom Brennan and Mathias Grassow's work goes for under 3 bucks per album. Even a new release like Robert Rich's Zerkalo is just around 6 bucks, and the download costs almost 10 at cdbaby! What's so surprising is that these prices seem to be well below market value, not just for your average ambient download album, but for the same album as compared to another website.The list goes on, so I'm wondering how they get away with doing this, and if the artists are in agreement with Amazon's cheap prices. Maybe they are, and other artists choose not to be so generous. Steve Roach's material, for example, does not follow the trend mentioned above, with his catalogue costing a consistent 9 dollars or so. Maybe it has something to do with relative demand?
Quote from: APK on April 19, 2009, 03:00:03 PMThinking that because something CAN be shared is reason for it being justifiably shared is rubbish. Not even radical socialism would be so stupid as to say that.
Quote from: judd stephens on April 20, 2009, 08:56:53 PMI'm wondering now why most artists don't see it that way? Why not just stream the whole album, or everything but the last minute or 30 sec. of each track?
Quote from: ffcal on April 20, 2009, 10:11:23 PMAnother label (Foundry) embedded two tracks from my album with Carl Weingarten (Invisibility) in a podcast interview, which I thought was a pretty creative approach.