[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

First off, the RIAA is basically the watchdog of the major labels. They don't make decisions of whether or not to allow downloads, etc.

Secondly, offering low res or cheap downloads in 1997 would have done nothing to curb file sharing. NOTHING.

Music has no value to these people. Offer something for free, people will take it for free. The latest Radiohead record is the PERFECT example. More than 60% of the downloaders took it for free. FREE.

And if people REALLY were interested in paying for downloads, why did Shawn Fanning's company, SnoCap, law off 70% of its workforce? Maybe because unlike Napster, it wasn't free??

Yep, those fans REALLY care about the artist.

I totally disagree about offering downloads in 1997. Back then America was not all that computer savvy. Most people got online via America Online and internet speeds were not as fast as they are today. Hard Drives were huge at a whopping 20 GB.

If people had been introduced to downloading music when the internet was really in it's infancy then we'd know no differently and a generation, perhaps two, would have been downloading music directly from the labels and thinking nothing of a deal of paying .25 cents a song for less than CD quality sounding music. Afterall, back then a download for a single song might have taken an hour via dialup.

It was really all about creating a mindset. The pirates succeeded in creating it because a vaccum was there.