Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonAngel
Exactly! Once you pay for a song on any music service, you can download it to your computer to listen to it multiple times, load to your smartphone, i-phone, i-pad, i-pod or whatever devices you choose to.
The libraries all over the US who subscribe to Freegal, must pay a hefty fee in order to provide the service to its library patrons. If there was anything immmoral about it at all, a public entity, such a a library, certainly would not be allowed to provide it. As I said before, Sony Music is a sponsor of it, so they obviously don't have a problem with it. And any other music company who allows the work of their artists to be provided, doesn't have a problem with it either.
|
Legal doesn't mean Moral. And big labels supporting it doesn't mean they actually like it, it means they feel they have to co exist otherwise people are gonna do it anyway. Trust me i read a huge report where the majors justified their support of peer to peers and streaming services. They don't like it but they feel they have no choice but to push the market rather than follow. The indies feel bullied into co existing by the fans and the majors, they can't afford to but they have to in order to keep up.
Big labels can afford to build it into their business model, indie labels can't and they're the ones who bring all the diversity out there. But now even the larger indie's are starting to play the numbers game. No proffessional company in the industry likes peer to peer or streaming services, a huge survey recently compiled showed overwhelming contempt for these companies but feel unable to compete at the moment. The industry is scrambling to try to find a way to get rid of these sites, but the popularity of these sites is forcing the industry to act in a way it feels uncomfortable with right now