See, that's similar to the logic the labels were following in the early
60s.  And here's how it's flawed, IMHO:

Most people aren't going to purchase the song they have already
downloaded.  But many more people (many TIMES more, not just a percentage
increase) are going to download it if they can get it for free than if
they have to pay for it.  Yes, some of them will be happy with this one
song and listen to it forever without making a purchase.  (Of course, the
poor schlub at an internet cafe in Afghanistan could never afford a copy
of the CD anyway, so you're not losing anything.)  BUT, some quantity of
the people who now have this song are going to love it and want more, so
they are going to spring for the whole CD.  Some of them will even buy
other CDs by the same artist.  And some of them, once they're in the shop
(online or b&m), will pick up other CDs.  Yes, you're sacrificing the
initial songs downloaded for free, but look what you get.

And don't forget the not insignificant group of people who will download
an entire CD for free and later buy it anyway, for whatever reason.  The
free downloads are reaching so many more people that this otherwise small
group can become substantial.

Today's free download (authorized or otherwise) is, for all intents and
purposes, an even more effective promotional tool than radio was in its
heyday, because payola and other limitations are finally eliminated. 
Plus, it's insanely cheap.  (Goodbye indie promotion budget!!)

Seems like a no brainer to me . . .

g



On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:00:20 -0400 audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
> I see where parallels seem apparent. But the analogy is flawed because
the 
> material ISN'T getting played on the radio so that people can hear it
before 
> sampling it. What they're doing is downloading something that may have 
> caught their interest (latest "hot" title, referred by a friend, what
have 
> you) without necessarily hearing it first. If they hate it they delete 
> it....if they like it....they've got it for free with no initiative to 
> purchase it....save maybe their guilty concience. Bwahahaha.
> 
>