Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (9770)	3/20/2000 7:54:00 PM
From: Binx Bolling	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

OT Module maker files for $57.5M IPO eet.com

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (9770)	3/21/2000 6:28:00 AM
From: Tumbleweed	Respond to of 60323

OT (More on the record industry) >>>>>A change that might not have occurred had the industry not charged $15 for a piece of plastic that probably costs 10c to produce and that the music artist gets only $1 or less for.<<<<< This convenient piece of "logic" is used to try and justify stealing. In fact, it is not the "$0.10" piece of plastic that one pays for on a CD. It is the CONTENT Two points Rocky, first of all I did say I was merely pointing out the situation as it is and will be, not justifying it. Second point, if the record industry are only charging me for the content (your point), why didnt I get all my CD's free or at production cost when I rebought much of my vinyl again on CD? I seem to recall having to handout good money when I bought 'Who's next' on CD, having already bought it twice on vinyl (the only album I ever wore out through replaying!) (and they didnt offer me a cheaper vinyl the second time either, though apparently I'd already bought the content and was only buying a piece of plastic second time? I'd say they are charging not for content, but for what they can get away with, something unrelated to production costs or the artists remuneration. And I would also say that the only reason they spend so much money is the advertising budget to hype mediocre acts and foist junk on the public. Less of the superfluous junk and costs would fall all around. Why should I have to pay say $15 (or 50% higher here in the UK) for a band I like simply because some record exec decided to spend a million dollars advertising the latest 'me too' boy/girl/rap group. But letting artists rise or fall on their own merits wouldnt exactly allow the labels to retain control would it? Now, the Internet gives us an excellent low cost medium for promoting new acts with minimal or no financial outlay or risk. But I dont see the major labels doing much of that. Joe