Is this song really worth £.89? A communist or hippie who never grew up believes that the cost of a product should only include the price of materials and labor -- no allowance for crass profit, no monetary value for "art". From this perspective, a song is worth just pennies; enough to cover the cost of packaging and a living wage for the proletarian band. But in a capitalist democracy, people tend to value art. Some art may be deemed priceless, while other artistic treasures are worth at least a few "bones". Surely every single song does not have the commie value of a few pence or even the web market value of £.89. To you, a great song may be worth 2 or 3 pounds. While another song may only be worth £.47 in your mind. For example, to me the song "Fergalicious" is worth 3 pounds, while a Melissa Ethridge song about global warming is worth negative £.75 -- you have to pay me that much before I listen to it. "Damaged Goods" is over thirty years old and has consistently increased in value. When you work hard for your money or have underlings work hard for your money (or if you're a hippie, when you hassle other people for their "bread" or "mullah"), you want a song with good value. This song is a 5 star investment vehicle. Objective critics may say it's worth at least £2.50. Buy the song from Amazon and you pocket a cool £1.61. (That's 2-3 organic tomatoes for you).