Post #146341 by Satan's Sin on Sat, Mar 12, 2005 4:05 PM

I really don't see the difference between downloading a (copyrighted) file from the Internet for private use and going to the library and checking out a (copyrighted) book, or DVD, or CD. The authors of these works in the library aren't getting any sort of royalty for this "free read."

I really and truly think the music industry would come roaring back with both barrels if they just lowered their prices. It worked for the movie industry. In fact, their revenue stream from DVDs is greater than for that of the theatrical release.

Anyone remember a couple of years ago when Universal Music Group (I think) lowered their prices by 33% across the board? That was an attempt to lower prices, but the retailers wouldn't hear of it. The retailers considered this "found money," an extra 33% for them whenever they sold the CD at the unchanged list price. And as anyone with eyes has seen, record stores are nearly gone. I say they dragged the knife across their own throats.

This is a market-driven economy, and when there is an alternative to something that is priced outrageously, people will take that alternative. A vendor in this situation can dig in his heels -- and not pass along a 33% discount, say -- and refuse to face the reality of the new situation. Or he can change. The movie industry reacted to this and came up with an alternative to copying (i.e., lowering prices, as opposed to filing these ridiculous lawsuits), which I guess means smarter people are working in the movie industry, as opposed to the music industry, which seems amazingly intransigent.

Now this thing with the iPods, with the 99-cent per song downloads, this is more like it. I think 99 cents a song is fair. And evidently so do a lot of other people.