Why MusicNet is Better Than Napster

[spstn]

Is it me, or something is amiss with all of these services trying to take off the ground?

Which are the factors, and how do you account for them, to establish the cost of one track or the whole CD, when it is downloaded in mp3 format?.

Is it the conventional value of a copyrighted work alone, or do you take into consideration the quality of the format?.

The track of an average CD cost $ 1.30 - 1.50 each, the format is lossless, and you get a physical Cd, a booklet and a jewel box.

On the other hand the mp3 format is lossy (even at 320), and the only thing you're getting is a file.

And when I look at the whole picture 99 cents a track in mp3 format looks more like twice of what I should be paying (in case you put a gun to my head forcing me) for it.

And in my opinion this is just only part of the problem, because what's really a disgrace is the format itself; mp3 format shouldn't be used to sell anything.

I have no problem with it being used for personally managing your music collection (I do it), but never, EVER to sell music to the general public.

In my humble opinion this (among other trends) will help to acomplish, in the long run, what Sony couldn't do with the Mini Disc, despite forgetting to inform the user of the lossy nature of the format: the killing of lossless delivery of music.

There's already a generation that doesn't know what Hi Fi means (They listen to pictures, and the medium is the message), and the Lo Fi trend is gonna get worse, not better.

I know this is a lost cause, but at least saying it out loud take the insult out of the injury.