You're going to be seeing a LOT of price-warring in the coming year(s). First it was iTunes, MusicMatch, Rhapsody, Napster (owned by Roxio), now it's Walmart. Plans are in the works for Sony, Microsoft, Pepsi, and Buy.com to implement similar services. It's going to be interesting to see who survives the RIAA's price fixing, and I don't think P2P sharing will go away any time soon, either. The songs are still a bit pricey @ $0.99, IMHO, because you are making so many concessions with downloading: it exists only as a computer file, you are QUITE limited as to what you can actually DO with it once you have purchased it, and the record companies have basically done away with the physicalities of CDs which saves them a TON of money but gives us no break in price at all. Even at a buck a piece, most CDs have around 15 songs, which would be $15 for the whole CD, right? Plus, I'm not getting any cover art OR a case with online purchasing.
I just think there's better ways of doing things...though Walmart is moving in the right direction (so long as their inventory is good). I *almost* like the Canadian way, taxing CD-R blanks and allowing P2P filesharing.
I don't think the tax thing fine and dandy, but it's a good start. Wow, never thought I'd agree with something Canada has done.
FYI, I'm never buying another Beatles album because of their non-participation in online music. Screw 'em, they've made enough money over the years anyway.
I hope I didn't come across as hating buying music online. I just think we have a long way to go before it is all sorted out.
I am FOR artists getting adequately compensated.
I am AGAINST the RIAA and their gestapo-style tactics for finding P2P'ers to sue, and getting the majority of the money you pay for CDs.