4 ms·
I would, as I explained in my parent post. Talking about buying music files online so far I bought several releases at http://web.archive.org/web/*/fakescience
by aw3c2 17y ago
I would, as I explained in my parent post.
Talking about buying music files online so far I bought several releases at http://web.archive.org/web/*/fakescience.com http://web.archive.org/web/*/fakescience.com and one directly from an (totally overhyped) artist. fakescience is dead now (not profitable enough), the other artist annoyed me to unsubscription with egomaniac HTML mails. fakescience had a good price (5$), the artist was overpriced (and in the end I really only liked 2 tracks from the album).
I really like Magnatune's model, but then I do get my "new music" fix from free stuff nowadays and other music usually is the normal music industry model. So Magnatune sadly is not interesting for me as customer.
Magnatune is a perfect example how to do it (apart from the payment system, I believe they only support Paypal. But that is not their problem to fix, anonymous micropayment is not existing yet from what I know.).
- tptacek 17y agoSo then, like me, you don't dispute that it's wrong to copy and distribute music from independent artists, especially when their licensing feeds fund their work directly. But you and I probably differ on how wrong it is to copy and redistribute major-label music. I'm not stuck on the major-labels-are-evil stuff. I think they're evil too, but I also think if you want to have Gnarls Barkley on your iPod, you have to play Warner's game. I'm curious where the slippery slope ends for you, though. Presumably, copying and republishing Girl Talk is clearly wrong. Copying and republishing Magnatune music is pretty wrong. Copying and republishing Matador albums is, what, a little wrong?