On Tuesday 22 Jul 2003 5:12 pm, JoeHill wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:23 +0100 > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > I wonder if there's a catch we don't know about, or whether it's > > just that they think they'll never get anywhere without the > > contract. It seems to be an ideal answer, but obviously many > > artists aren't convinced. > > Further: > > http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php > > interesting model. I strongly believe that Open Source is the sol'n > to many conundrums such as music, software, and ideas in general. > Everyone is too focused on "mine mine mine" like 3 yr olds in a > sandbox. It's time capitalism grew up!
An interesting article. There's a possible weakness in the huge variety of models, but choice for the artist is a plus. I'm a bit dubious about the 'Ad Revenue Sharing', as it could easily turn into yet another way of giving micro amounts to the artist and keeping the rest for the site. I'm not too keen, either, on having governments fix the fee (Individual Compulsory Licenses). Still, that leaves several others that could work. Apart from the distributor rip-off, the other often-heard argument is that you only really want one or two tracks from an album. So, serious question from one who no longer follows much in the music line, how much would you pay per track? Personally I would like to be able to listen for, say, 1/2 minute free of charge before buying on a per track basis. This would enable me to buy artists and tracks that I have not heard before, with confidence. I would almost certainly buy more if I could do this. I can't bring myself to pay �16 or whatever on the off chance that I would play a cd more than a couple of times, so I don't buy many. Anne
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
