« Music Industry News: Google, MOG, PC Mag Responds, Pledge Music, Vampire Weekend & More | Main | German "Spotify Clone" Pairs With Social Network »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


As long as I can buy something that allows me to A: maintain my own local copy, B: have it be as high quality (or higher) than buying a hard copy and C: not be forced to watch it on a device of the distributor's choosing (A La iTunes), I'm all for it - hard drives are cheap. :)

Lynn S.

Totally agree on DVDs. Other than for my kids who like to watch the same movie over and over again, what is the point in buying them?

As to music, I don't think the "rental" model will replace ownership, because of catalogue gaps. Music subscription services will never offer it "all", and having to buy stuff in addition to paying $10/month is a drag. They should drop the price to $5 for web/mobile which puts it more in line with reality -- Netflix is charging $7.99/month for movie streaming on all devices. Music is less expensive to make than movies, so they should all drop their prices accordingly.

Phil Bowyer

The argument of digital vs. physical is getting old. There's room for both. While most these days prefer digital there are some who like the features that a DVD or CD bring (cover art, special features, etc.).

Physical media will become a "premium" and will have a limited run, much like how vinyl is today.

Let's ditch the battle between physical and digital and get back to how we can use BOTH to enhance the business of music and make the talented artists of our time some money!


Movies and music are two very different animals.

Most films I really don't need or want to see even twice. Most music which I listen to, I'd like to listen to again and again.

If it's only watch once, why would I want to own it?

If it's something I'd like to listen to for the rest of my life, why would I want to rent it?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources