"David W. Tamkin" wrote:
> Agreed. The average downloader is more likely thinking, "Hey, I'm getting
> this stuff for free. Isn't that great?" To think "I'm stealing this stuff"
> would require considering the situation further and thinking about its having
> an owner and whether its free availability was the owner's idea or someone
> else's.
But if there were a small fee involved, I think that would not stop many people
from using the service. Say a nickel for each successful download of a complete
song.
Kids spend $12 to $17 dollars on a CD. At 5 cents a song that could by 240 to
340 songs. At 10 songs per CD that's 24 to 34 CDs. But you get the songs that
you want. Not just like buying one CD to get one song you like, which is often
the case.
This could bring up a whole new issue of "padding" CDs with songs just to justify
charging $17 for a CD. I'm not getting into that.
If the quality of MP3's is not acceptable to you (I mean "you" in general, not
David) then you aren't going to be interested in downloading MP3s in the first
place.
> Now MP3.com has been hit with a big penalty judgment; we'll see where that
> goes.
I doubt that the supreme court will be will to take this one. If it doesn't have
to with abortion, they usually don't seem interested <G>.
> David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells
> like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to
> whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do
David!!!! It's like you went inside my head. Book the words out of my mouth and
typed them!
Have a great weekend,
Larry
>
> they know?)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
