Hey David > >Hi Ken, >I know what you are saying. On the other hand, isn't the value of ALL >intellectual property somewhat arbitrary and based on artificial >scarcity (but definitely NOT the quality of information)?
I can agree and disagree with this David. The internet changes things obviously - including in music, ha! That is, it's served to lower the monetary value of intellectual property, including music hasn't it? Which does I admittedly bring us back to another of your points: one of the reason why some providers try to use the particular medium of vinyl to make what seem to us to be inflated profits for one particular item. Because the internet has deflated most of the market for what they produce to a level at ehich somewhat desperate measures seem to be neeeded. (From their point of view.). In an age >when people can distribute digital copies of the musical information on >a release for free, it seems like limited editions are one of the few >logical strategies available for record companies to make a profit. I >feel that for smaller labels, selling limited editions with very >artistic packaging is perhaps the only logical way to release music - >that way the label can use the global flows of information (in this case >.mp3 versions of the release) to reach a wider audience around the >world, rather than trying to wage an unproductive and ultimately futile >fight against file sharing. Perhaps subscription services might be >another logical approach.
