Topic #2: Pick one topic to respond to:
I would say yes to buy songs over and over, but I think the industry practice of changing media formats to sell more content has ended as we know it. The iPod and iTunes has changed it all. We can now change the hardware as needed and maintain our collection digitally.
Apple has done a great job of creating an environment for people to buy music affordably and in a simple manner. I think the key to minimizing piracy is to provide the content in a way that piracy is not worth the hassle and using value added content and services to the purchase.
I would say yes to buy songs over and over, but I think the industry practice of changing media formats to sell more content has ended as we know it. The iPod and iTunes has changed it all. We can now change the hardware as needed and maintain our collection digitally.
Apple has done a great job of creating an environment for people to buy music affordably and in a simple manner. I think the key to minimizing piracy is to provide the content in a way that piracy is not worth the hassle and using value added content and services to the purchase.
Monday, March 15, 2010 - 08:24 PM
I don't buy music at all. The idea to me is one that really angers me in that it implies you have no right to have "EARS" when walking by a song or music that has been published. That your "EARS" should only function when you pay for the sound to be heard. We always come up with ways to stop music from being pirated, if that's the case, why not also lower the boom on those who want to invade our listening space with "BOOM-BOOM" music in the car next to us? It seems to me the the industry has plagued us with artificial laws and rules from just enjoying music when it is - JUST MUSIC!
I do believe that there has been many strives to curtail Piracy, but by that same token, these are the same people who find ways to get music to the ears of those not having been exposed to begin with just to get them addicted to "BUYING".. Hum? sounds like a similar campaign the cigarette companies used in the 50's and 60's to lure in young smokers?
I don't buy music at all. The idea to me is one that really angers me in that it implies you have no right to have "EARS" when walking by a song or music that has been published. That your "EARS" should only function when you pay for the sound to be heard. We always come up with ways to stop music from being pirated, if that's the case, why not also lower the boom on those who want to invade our listening space with "BOOM-BOOM" music in the car next to us? It seems to me the the industry has plagued us with artificial laws and rules from just enjoying music when it is - JUST MUSIC!
I do believe that there has been many strives to curtail Piracy, but by that same token, these are the same people who find ways to get music to the ears of those not having been exposed to begin with just to get them addicted to "BUYING".. Hum? sounds like a similar campaign the cigarette companies used in the 50's and 60's to lure in young smokers?
No comments:
Post a Comment