Comment by mike

Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:33:12 EDT

Comment by Tom Johnson

Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:24:31 EDT

The biggest issue in this particular article, as Eric points out, is that we have yet to develop a way to get the point across that just because we have programs that'll allow file-trading to happen doesn't mean that it's okay. Kids in particular have a hard time understanding a concept like this, because there is no physical harm being done anywhere to anyone. Personally, I think that were file-sharing not around, much of the music these kids and, indeed, people in general, download wouldn't sell all that much anyway. I think it's solely because they can get it for free that they do so. The days of buying singles were over long before file-sharing became popular, as evidenced by the death of the single as a format (in general) in the US. The industry claimed they weren't selling, but really, it's more likely they wanted to encourage album sales instead. This has in effect forced consumers into buying full CDs for that one song they want. In response, and with the internet, consumers found a new way to get those singles. Putting it this way adds a unique twist, doesn't it? Maybe the RIAA should think about pushing the companies to release *affordable* singles - $0.99 a disc for that one song, with or without a b-side. I recently passed on Radiohead's latest single - why? Because I really didn't feel like paying $4.99 for three songs, not when I could buy a whole new album for a little over twice that (yes, you can, if you know the right places to look) or a full length used CD for just a couple bucks more. $5 for three songs - 10-12 minutes of music - is RIDICULOUS. Lower this price and people will likely respond. Just like with the price of full-lengths - lower the price and people DO respond. The hassle and time involved with downloading and burning is worth a few bucks to most adults, at least. I find it annoying, and I'm a big downloader of live material (not official releases, mind you.) If I, someone who is very well-versed in the ins-n-outs of this activity, find it annoying, think of how annoying it is to people who *don't* do this regularly. Kids do this because they have time to do this, not to mention the "rebellious" nature of it. When they grow up, they'll probably buy more, or, like most of my friends, won't really care much about music at all once their time becomes consumed with other more important activities. But the RIAA can't face reality like this, because it means that they are the ones at fault for the problem in the first place. Why blame yourself if you can point the finger at others who really *are* breaking the law. The problem ALWAYS relates back to the law-breakers, right? It's *never* indicative of another problem . . . The solutions will begin to appear when they stop pointing fingers. Plain and simple.

Comment by bhw

Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:44:54 EDT

IT shouldn't be illegal," said 14-year-old Sonya Arndt. "It's not like I'm selling it." Or paying for it. That's the problem.

Blogcritics: Comments on "It's not like I'm selling it"

Comment by mike

Comment by Tom Johnson

Comment by bhw