Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@daiIyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Monday, June 2,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant:
Salena De La Cruz
Music
for a song
Ever since 1999, when Napster emerged to enable music
fans to download their favorite songs for free, the music in
dustry has stumbled in the dark looking for a solution to illegal
downloading. They may have finally found it.
The recording industry has joined forces with Apple to of
fer the iTunes Music Store. This new downloading service of
fers any music fan with a credit card the ability to download
200,000 songs for 99 cents apiece or $9.99 per album, with no
subscription fees.
“Consumers don’t want to be treated
like criminals, and artists don’t want
their valuable work stolen,” Apple CEO
Steve Jobs said in a press release. “The
iTunes Music Store offers a ground
breaking solution for both.”
This represents a shift from the
record companies’ former tactics, when
they attacked Napster, flailing like a bit
ten animal in a blind rage. While the
music industry’s lawsuits succeeded in
shutting down Napster, music con
sumers simply used other services, such
as Kazaa and Morpheus.
Perhaps the recording industry has realized the futility of
this tactic. By offering legal downloads, the iTunes Music Store
aims to reawaken consumers to the concept of paying for mu
sic. Apple’s gamble seems to be working. While it remains to
be seen whether consumers will desert the many free services
to plunge into legal downloading, consumers bought more
than one million songs in the service’s first week.
,To its creftt. the iTunes Music Store tries hard to be user
friendly. It lets consumers listen to 30-second song previews
before deciding whether to buy the song. The music store also
offers comprehensive search options, exclusive songs and free
music videos.
The available music exists in AAG format, which Apple
claims takes up less space and downloads faster than tradi
tional MP3s. The files can be copied onto a CD, an iPod or up
to three Macintosh computers.
The iTunes Music Store represents the music industry’s re
alization that downloading is here to stay. That realization has
been a long time coming, but the industry is making amends
with this bold move.
Chuck
Slothower
Clocktower
hush
EVERY MAM FOR ^
HIMSELF. THEY
HAVE <m SOH&S
AND THEr'RE LEGAL!
i
The music store’s greatest disadvantage is that it only works
with Macs that have the OS X operating system, version 10.1.5
or newer. That eliminates more than 95 percent of home com
puter users. Fortunately, Apple plans to rectify that situation'
by unleashing a Windows-compatible service near the end of
2003. The service also requires iTunes 4, which can be down
loaded for free from Apple’s Web site.
Another disadvantage of buying songs online is that it de
prives consumers of the lyrics, photos and other features fre
quently included in the booklets that come with store-bought
CDs. However, that didn’t seem to stop the Napster faithful.
The iTunes Music Store also doesn’t offer the bootleg music
that is often the best part of free downloading services.
While the music store’s library is impressive and increasing,
Rhapsody has the greatest selection of the licensed download
ing services, with more than 320,000 songs, according to the
Peter Utsey Emerald
San Francisco Chronicle. Unlike iTunes, however, Rhapsody
charges a subscription fee of $9.95 per month.
Finally, don’t expect to find the new Floater ox Courtesy
Clerks album through the music store, as the service only* in
cludes music put out by the five major labels that comprise
the Recording Industry Association of America.
Whatever its shortcomings, the iTunes Music Store repre
sents the music industry’s strongest effort yet to stem the tide
of illegal downloading. Apple and the RIAA have seen the fu
ture, and it is good.
You can check out the iTunes Music Store for yourself at ap
ple .com/music/store.
Contact the columnist at chuckslothower@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
Taxpayers deserve their benefits
Guest commentary
I work on campus, and for nearly a year now, I
have* been reading the Emerald’s Commentary
page — I guess because I like to see what Uni
versity students are thinking, but probably more
because I enjoy getting worked up over contro
versial issues.
I have bean continuously amazed at the ex
treme liberal opinions presented. DJ Fuller’s col
umn (“The mega-rich cash in,” ODE, May 20)
prompted me to finally respond. It would be
easy to argue point by point with Fuller, but I
would like the numbers to speak for themselves
on this issue.
The following story’s original author is un
known. The figures are fairly close to accurate,
which can be verified at the IRS Web site. Fuller
should read this story because in the real world,
he will pay taxes, and this is how they work.
Evepy-night, 10 men ate together at a restau
rant. At the end of the meal, the bill for $100
would arrive. At first they weren’t sure how to di
vide it. They decided to pay based on how blessed
they were. Because of their financial state, the
first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth man
paid $3. The sixth man, feeling more blessed,
paid $5. The next three men paid $6, $8 and $11,
respectively. The last man, who was the richest,
paid the remaining $67.
They did this every night. One day, the
restaurant manager told them because they
were such good customers, he wanted to lower
their bill by 20 percent. Now dinner for the 10
men would only cost $80, and they had to divide
the savings. The first four men were unaffected.
They would still eat for free. But how could the
other six divvy up the #20 windfall so everyone
would get a “fair share?”
The six men realized that #20 divided by six
is #3.33. But if they subtracted that from every
body’s share, the fifth man would be paid to eat.
The restaurant owner suggested that each man’s
reduction be based on the amount he paid. So
the fifth man paid #2, the sixth paid #3, the sev
enth paid #4, the eighth paid #6, the ninth paid
#8, leaving the 10th man with a bill of #57 in
stead of his earlier #67. They all were better off
than before. And the first four men continued
eating for free.
But outside the restaurant, the men compared
their savings. “I only got #2 out of the #20,” de
clared the sixth man, who pointed to the 10th.
“But he got #10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I
only saved a dollar. It’s unfair that he got 10 times
more than me! The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“We didn’t get anything at all!” the first four men
yelled in unison. “The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat
him up. The next night, he didn’t show up. But
when they tried to pay, the others discovered
they were now$57 short!
Arid that, boys and girls, journalists and college
instructors, is how the tax system works. The
people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a reduction. Tax them too much, at
tack them for being wealthy, and they just may
not show up at the table anymore.
Mark Butler lives in Eugene.
Letter to the editor
Officials must address
park conservation
Sen. Ron Wyden and University Presi
dent Dave Frohnmayer should immedi
ately explain to the community what de
velopment is going on currently in the
Riverfront Research Park area of the
Willamette, near the University.
Wyden and Frohnmayer publicly
supported conservation and restricting
development to north of the railroad
tracks until land south of the tracks
was fully developed. Wyden is pushing
for passage of the 21st Century Nan
otechnology Research and Develop
ment Act, which will fund building the
Multi-Scale Materials and Devices Cen
ter at a proposed site along the river’s
edge north of the tracks.
This site would break all previous
agreements made with the community
because there is so much undeveloped
land remaining further from the river.
If these two leaders are able to directly
address concerns and open debate
about this development early, the
many large-scale complexes are likely
to be properly designed and placed.
Wyden and Frohnmayer are obligat
ed to address the students on this very
important issue.
Bryan Anderson
OSPIRG Willamette
Campaign organizer
sophomore, environmental science
Last chance for letters to the editor!
Send us your opinions by Tuesday!
Finals are nearly upon us, and the Emerald's last issue for the 2002-03
academic year will be Monday, June 9. Hie opinion page is generally
planned a few days in advance of publication, so we encourage any
readers who wish to submit letters to the editor or guest commentaries
to do so promptly.
We have special content planned for the final issue, so Friday’s Emerald
wttl be the last time we will print reader submissions. Given the time
constraints, it is unlikely We wiflbeable to prim submissions received
after 5 p.m. Tuesday, although we wifi try.
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters
are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month, Submission
must include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald
reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style*