Metal Hammer is hoping to repeat the trick it managed with its Slash special back in April by lobbing out an Ozzy special for a healthy premium price.
The Slash one cost fifteen quid - in effect, it was an album that came with a free magazine - but the Ozzy issue is only going to be eight pounds; for that you get a "music download card".
What's interesting is the quote from Future's Chris Langham. Not that Chris Langham:
"I don't subscribe to the free music model, I don't think it sits very easily with hardcore rock fans," he said. "If people want to steal music online, they will. But there is a hard core group that want products they can touch and they are willing to pay for it."
Perhaps he was speaking in, I don't know, Greek and something got lost in translation? There's the suggestion that somehow liking Black Sabbath means you wouldn't support the idea of music being delivered without having to pay for it is confusing - presumably Kerrang Radio listeners send a cheque off whenever they hear a track?
Then the sudden leap that 'stealing music' is the opposite of having a physical product - what does that mean? That people who buy downloads online are somehow still stealing because they don't have a plastic box? He surely can't mean that? Does he not understand that online music sales are a large market, and there are people who don't want plastic records who also think that artists should get paid?
And, if there is a hardcore of an audience who want something physical, erm, why are you giving away a download card with the Ozzy pack?
The special issue is interesting in its own right, but why try and launch it by suggesting it has something to do with unlicensed filesharing? If anything, isn't this more about people not being as interested in having a physical magazine and finding ways to engage them?