Or better yet, encourage the music industry to change by supporting pay-per-song formats. 99 cents per song seems a bit stiff (I have a few CD's with 20 songs on them, and not sure I'd pay $20 for them) but it's a start.
If the music industry would make a concerted effort to rip their own songs in a closed, controlled enviroment there wouldn't be all these different volume levels, different qualities, etc of MP3s. They could control the standard and make money. The black market would dry up significantly, because folks would rather KNOW they're getting a good quality mp3 from the source for 99 cents rather than crossing their fingers and hoping that the guy who ripped the song wasn't spilling coke on it at the same time. But it's supply and demand. 99 cents per song is starting too high. If they OPENED with 10 cents per song, I'd be signed up today. If they start at 99 cents and then raise the cost later, they're going to just drive up the need for a cheap black market where folks will risk quality issues cuz they don't want to pay too much. How about a base rate of 10 cents per song, with 50 or 99 cents per song for newly released stuff? That way, like Blockbuster, they'd getcha if you HAVE to have that new thing RIGHT NOW, but after a year or so, they go back to a slow trickle of cash from the older stuff.
Hmmm...let's see...make a safe, controlled, consistent product...overseen by experts...created in a closed environment...drive the black market out of business....and make huge money by simultaneously alleviating the need for "enforcement" and gaining 99.9% of the control over the product. Sounds suspiciously rational to me.
Of course, you did realize that in the above paragraph I had diverged from the topic of the RIAA and was talking about a number of currently "illegal" things sold in the USA, didn't you? 
Drex
|
