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: Steve 667 who wrote (13421)	7/29/2000 6:55:34 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Steve, Very well reasoned repsonse. Until the RIAA makes an attempt to change with the times, I will download songs from the internet. I would gladly pay 50 cents a song for being able to do so, if they gave me the choice(no restrictions on how I may use it of course). Their legislation is indicative of an organization that is attempting to fight a trend much larger than they realize. The teenagers and young people of today are much more into Napster than the population at large. If they(RIAA) don't make any effort at changing with the times, they will be losing money and in the end will have nobody to blame but themselves. You cannot legislate the internet! BK

To: Steve 667 who wrote (13421)	7/30/2000 4:41:05 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Steve, the needs that you see can be met through the SD MMC, I believe. First, one has to look at the impact of Napster, and even more so, the impact of newer technologies that don't require a central file server. Essentially Napster and the related software programs facilitate barter. Barter is a form of non-monetary trading. One cannot determine if barter is taking place for personal pleasure or for commerce. If barter can occur at no cost other than signing on to an ISP, then the recording artist/publisher/originator gets nothing in return. You suggest that virtually no one would object to paying a nominal fee, such as $0.50, for a particular selection, instead of paying a huge price for an entire CD that may contain only one or two desired selections. I believe you are correct and that you have laid out the basis for dealing with the problem. First of all, the price per download is cheap enough so that few normal people (hackers excluded) would gain any satisfaction from finding a way to download free of charge. Second, if the download were authorized by the artist/publisher/originator, then the quality of the file would be guaranteed. No distortions or imperfections would be permitted (unless the original, such as an old LP, contained the imperfections, and those imperfections would be disclosed). Third, the originator of the content could determine if further copying by the downloader is permitted, and if so, how many copies. That specification could become part of the downloading software and also might have an impact on the price per download (more, if more copies are permitted). These kinds of operating parameters may already be allowed by the SD MMC, and if not, I think they could be designed into it. The only unanswered question, which is really the tough one is that, if the music can be copied free of charge, then who is going to be the sucker that buys the one and only one copy of the CD needed to provide the "original" for copying? And why would any artist/recording company/distributor want to go to the expense of issuing a CD in only one copy, knowing that theoretically that one copy might be the only copy it ever sells? Note, if you were able to download a music selection to a computer hard disk and/or flash memory card and limited to a certain number of file copies, you could still make an audio recording on the traditional casette or even a CD by simply tapping the audio signal at the speakers or amplifier. Your analog copy would be degraded somewhat from the original, but there is no way that I can see that you would be prevented from doing this, just as there is currently no way of stopping someone from making a tape copy of any type of recording. The recording industry gets worried, and I believe rightly so, about the possibility that someone might sell pirated casettes, CD's, etc. that are equal in quality to the original. They don't want people selling their stuff. They are less worried about people sharing tape copies, especially when it's clear the tape copy is not as good as the original. Selling pirated copies can be, and has been prevented successfully. I think we both agree that a music selection should not necessarily be made available for free. At least there should be an option to pay a nominal charge for the copy. Economists don't know the final answer, as shown in today's New York Times op-ed article by Paul Krugman. As he notes, Napster is just the beginning.