Originally Posted by Asrial
Music, in general, should be free or cheap....
Paying for a physical album includes some extra goodies, for example credits, artists' thanks, lyrics and artwork, where if you just download the album, all you get is the songs, maybe cover artwork...
As a professional musician for many years, this is the kind of statement that really saddens me. Should we not equate physical property and intellectual property? If I work at building a (insert your object here), I have to cover cost of materials, but don't you also pay for the labor time and in some cases the artistry behind it? Just because it's tangible, doesn't mean it's worth more.
A lot of music is free now because people began STEALING it online years ago. There was no way to compete and therefore, people began going with the flow, offering up stuff just to get it in the hands. There isn't another way now...that's the reality. (Pay want you want seems good IMHO)
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to stand up for the record companies that usually kept most of the profit anyway, but I get REALLY uncomfortable when people start seeing art as a "free hobby" that shouldn't be worth as much.
I also agree that if it doesn't cost anything, people tend to think it isn't worth anything.