Larry: I agree with everything you had to say with the exception of the "advertising". Advertisers flock to wherever the action is. I'm sure that if and when Napster came to terms with RIAA on the royalty demands that advertisers would flock around them like moths to a flame. Napster would more than make the same kind of revenue from advertising that FM stations do today, for besides anything else they would have a monopoly, so long as the RIAA didn't agree on terms with other MP3 copycats. I'm not a Futurist, but I hope and can even foresee that the future holds something better than the status quo with regard to consumers' entertainment. I don't whether I have reached the saturation point because of the years that I have had to endure it, but I personally am sick upto my teeth with TV and Radio commercials. At least with the MP3s on Napster, should they inundate them with commcerials, you would have the option of turning a blind eye or a deaf ear while concentrating on downloading. BTW, I think you meant "pay for hear", didn't you ? <G> Nice to have a discourse without flaming or inuendo. > From: las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:01:16 -0400 > Subject: Re: MD: md-l-mimedigest V2 #702 > > jgvp wrote: > >> You're missing my point. I can record from FM Radio because the RIAA have >> struck a deal with the FM stations, so it costs me nothing. Let the RIAA >> strike a deal with Napster and it still won't cost me anything. Nor should >> it, if FM Radio doesn't. > > There is just one problem, the radio stations have advertising that pays them > so > that they can pay the record companies. > > I don't see any source of income for Napster. There are no ads on Napster. ----------------------------------------------------------------- To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
