Michaelwagner Wrote: > > As another example, Apple Records and the Beatles and heirs earn money > every day on the music they wrote. And why shouldn't they. If you or a > new generation still enjoy their music now 30 years later, doesn't that > prove that their music was enduring? And shouldn't it continue to > generate revenues for them? If the stuff was really that good and > timeless? >
Bad example, though. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10493829/from/RL.2/ Considering EMI was selling King Crimson songs on iTunes, even though they didn't have rights to them.... nor did they pay King Crimson any of the royalties, even though EMI was making 69c/track... just what is the difference between, say, iTunes and allofmp3? (FWIW, for King Crimson music, check out dgmlive.com where you can buy many King Crimson works as FLAC or MP3.. and the artists even get the money.) -- snarlydwarf ------------------------------------------------------------------------ snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18642 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
