From: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org (oppositeview-digest) To: oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Subject: oppositeview-digest V3 #56 Reply-To: oppositeview@smoe.org Sender: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk oppositeview-digest Monday, February 26 2001 Volume 03 : Number 056 Today's Subjects: ----------------- OV: Dels on telly in Japan [WENDY.CHEN@hakuhodo.co.jp] OV: Universal Music update and file sharing dilemas [Kristy McDonald Subject: OV: Universal Music update and file sharing dilemas Jennifer Woyan wrote: > . . . the venture, called Duet, would have subscription and > other listening services ready by this summer. > > Music executives have been working on implementing their own legal > alternatives to file-swapping, such as subscription services that would allow > users to get music files for a monthly fee. Here we go again. I know this is a contentious issue, but I would like to go on record as saying that I wish the major record companies would get their collective acts together and just work out a deal already! I feel like they are all yanking the public's chain. I am willing to pay to download music, but I don't want to pay HUGE amounts of money. That is one of my major concerns. I admit that I know little about artist royalties, but I think that 50 cents a download is fair. If you look at the number of MP3 downloads these days, the record companies would make a mint. I like to think that Napster users would support artists and pay for a service that gives back - but again, at a reasonable cost. A few months back when Capitol Records decided to test online album downloads, I was stoked. I wanted to try it and see how the technology worked. Here I was thinking that I could pay a fee and download the CD without having to pay a middleman OR pay for packaging since I would be providing the actual materials to MAKE the CD. I visited the web site and found that I could only purchase a "key" if I visited a participating store, and that said key was going to cost close to $20. Hullo? What is wrong with this picture? Even though I was supplying materials and the cost of producing, printing and packaging was eliminated, the "art" was going to cost me 20 hard earned dollars. That was where I laughed and thought "Okay RIAA - screw you. I have supported hundreds of artists over the years, and you pay my loyalty back with a price gouge?" My personal war was on. Since, I have learned the fine art of scouring second hand CD stores and I sometimes download hard to find or out of print songs from that service I won't mention. If I hear a great song and I can preview a band with 2 songs I will. That was how I found out how much I like STP and Robbie Williams and Ronan Keating - incidentally, you can't get Ronan's CD here unless you pay for import. The last import I bought was HoR and that cost me $50. My point is that fans are a mostly loyal bunch and we WILL pay for play, or download as the case may be. I just wonder how we'll all pay for such a service. I hate using credit cards online and I would much prefer to prepay a "key", but will I have to pay for the use of a middleman? Will a record company's ENTIRE catalogue be available? For instance, if I wanted to download Glen Campbell's "Rhinestone Cowboy", could I do it as easily as I could a popular song like one from Madonna or Britney or BSB? What is the answer? Could any one of us come up with the solutions easily? I'd be interested to hear the solutions of others, since most on the list have already declared support or dislike for file sharing services. Kristy in Canada P.S. - Kudos to Jennifer for posting that article. I thought it was totally interesting. It makes me think of the implications services like that could have for delivery of music and videos to radio and music video stations. I think it would be a money saver, for sure. ------------------------------ End of oppositeview-digest V3 #56 *********************************