![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLaBcajmbXIRd53BxtY347Wt1emStX0k8EzFybfB-dLHPC_ievqDSYdqKSE63jVwkaj_s-kxC0v0lLm7vkV_4-r2wg-9yb5T7OyiPFAbvcEJ4QqcL_T8z8A7Rg0dIPGCJk6fhQNatHFog/s200/funny-pictures-corporate-fat-cat-is-keeping-the-bonus.jpg)
The other day I was looking to buy the new Franz Ferdinand song, "
No You Girls." I like it, it's pretty catchy. I went to my default store — the
Amazon MP3 Store — and found out it was selling for $1.29. Bummer. I was hoping for 99 cents. So I checked
Lala.com. Same price. iTunes. Same price. Now, $1.29 is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. The NYC subway costs more than that. But something about paying $1.29 for a single made me angry. Back in the day (early 90s), I used to pay $3 for a CD single which included the song I wanted along with 3 other songs. But today, $1.29 for *one* digital single just doesn't feel right.
And then I read this
NYT article. (Summary: the record labels want to charge night clubs, restaurants, and even fitness clubs a royalty fee for playing music in public. They're already doing this in Australia and looking to expand to China, Italy, and U.S.) And that's when I decided I am never paying over $99 cents for a song. Ever. In fact, I'm taking a break. Unless a friend lends me an album, I'm just not buying new music (or attending any shows). Stupid, greedy record labels.
No comments:
Post a Comment