4 ms·
I am surprised music publishers haven't pushed for exactly what Pink Floyd are arguing for here. When music was sold on tape and CD you could buy a complete alb
by ukdm 17y ago
I am surprised music publishers haven't pushed for exactly what Pink Floyd are arguing for here. When music was sold on tape and CD you could buy a complete album, and/or buy the overpriced singles with maybe one additional track, or several versions of the same track.
Surely that was more profitable than the current focus of selling individual digital tracks? If publishers decided they would only sell digital albums and digital singles, and not split them up, wouldn't that work in their favour?
As a consumer I hope that doesn't happen, I just don't fully understand why EMI would argue against just selling digital albums.
- LargeWu 17y agoIf it was more profitable, EMI probably wouldn't have fought Pink Floyd's decision to sell their music as complete albums only. My guess is selling individual tracks is more profitable, because a) cost per track is usually higher when purchased separately and b) only allowing complete album downloads likely results in lost sales from those who are only willing to pay for a single track. Pink Floyd apparently has enough money and doesn't really have to worry about this, and is primarily concerned with the artistic aspect.