Quote:
Originally Posted by JennaG
I agree with you. I have been unemployed in the past and I know what it's like when money is tight but regardless of whether this 'freegal' thing is legal or not, to me it wouldn't feel morally right to be downloading music that artists have put a lot of time and effort into creating. If I can't afford to buy it, then I can't have it, it's as simple as that and I accept it.
I can't believe that record companies allow this to happen to be honest. It's one thing to allow a couple of tracks per artist to be downloaded but to allow every track on an album to be downloaded? They may as well tell the artists not to bother promoting their albums to fans and just tell everyone to go and get a library card and get the album for free.
|
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it has been said that nowadays, new albums for many artists are seen as loss-leaders in order to sell tours. I guess there are cases where this will be true - albums at best break even and the real money is made on live shows.
Loss leaders are a well established marketing strategy in other industries - why not in music?
Of course it has to be the artists choice to adopt that business model, it cannot be forced on him by unscrupulous websites and people, but the existence of this strategy does muddy the waters sometimes when it comes to making generalised statements on the issue.