said by rds24a :

There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:

1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.

2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.

As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can).

said by N3OGH :

Way to Troll..

I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit.

When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning?

1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores.

2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song.

Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP.

A short list of things that cost more than a buck...

A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15

A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39

A gallon of gas $2.35

A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake.

Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want...

said by Karl Bode :

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.

said by stet :

and don't have to worry about DRM or other issues. I can, if I wanted to, convert it to any other format for any specific reason.

said by Kearnstd :

a 320k MP3 cant be seperated from a CD in quality. ive played Burned from MP3 and store bought CDs in my truck and cant tell the difference.

said by 43193594 :

One doesn't have to have a degree in Psych to gather an impression of someone. :uhh:

said by TKJunkMail :

And what does it explain? And please list your accreditations to make psychological evaluations based on a 2 sentence posting.

said by Brownbay :

Not surprising; and explains a lot.

said by TKJunkMail :

I make up posting sigs and change on a regular basis.

said by unigamer :

Well, it is stealing... but, as with many laws, there's a big gap between the law, and the enforcement of the law. LOL

If every stupid little law on the books were enforced everywhere, they'd have to build a zillion new jails... and get aliens to be the jailors. Because I'm sure that almost all of us were guilty of something at some time. :D

said by TKJunkMail :

This is about the 50th attempt(probably a slight exaggeration; very slight) over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity. Sure the music publishers make tons of money, and they only promote certain artists. But that doesn't justify the stealing. If artists want to control their own fate, let them get together, find some investors, and start their own distribution channels outside of the RIAA. Let them distribute using P2P channels, and let them depend on voluntary PayPal accounts to make some profits. And about 2 yrs down the road, the artists and their investors will be whining like the RIAA about the lowlifes not paying for their work.

My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum

said by thender2 :

quote:

---

Retired Gov't Official

---

Explains a lot.

said by G_Poobah :

Copyright infringement? Where?

If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network.

There's no infringement there. nothing to see.

said by MeanPeepsSuk :

Who cares if Retire_Rich is first??? (Besides you two?).

When I agree with him or not.. At least they are on-topic (Ahem) and they are sure a lot better thread starters than most.

said by TKJunkMail :

Off topic and false.

said by Karl Bode :

Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy.

said by Karl Bode :

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.

said by Karl Bode :

Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy.

You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them.

Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).

said by TKJunkMail :

This is about the 50th attempt over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity.