tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6973115.post112916278628414062..comments2009-05-05T11:34:39.858-07:00Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13210209217043211940noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6973115.post-16345891774706406442009-05-05T11:34:00.000-07:002009-05-05T11:34:00.000-07:00Thanks for the comments. <br /><br />My rationale behind the $0.05 is that is my price point for buying a song every single time I want a song. Sometimes I need to buy a song just to listen to for a band rehearsal, sometimes it's a favorite that I'll listen to over and over again. I think when you lower the price point significantly, you create a new market for your music that didn't exist before (one-time use market). Since electronic downloads are infinite goods, then I believe, ultimately, it would only benefit the artist.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13210209217043211940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6973115.post-57119532447793759932009-05-05T10:43:00.000-07:002009-05-05T10:43:00.000-07:00I agree that .99 is too much for a song. Over the years I think I've bought 3 or 4 songs at that price. It's too high. But .05? $0.50/album? ugh. where does that leave the artist? I would w/o hesitation pay $0.25/song for a legal non-DRM 320k MP3.<br /><br />peace!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com