Slashdot Mirror
Jupiter Report Says Napster Users Buy MORE Music
flufffy writes "According to this report on CNet, a new Jupiter Research report on 2200 online music fans has found that Napster users are likely to buy more rather than less music. "Because Napster users are music enthusiasts, it's logical to believe that they are more likely to purchase now and increase their music spending in the future," Jupiter analyst Aram Sinnreich said in a statement. OK so it's another Napster story -- but, of all the Net behaviour researchers out there, Jupiter are one set of people I would trust more to do their research methodically and impartially. I think that this is one of the strongest surveys of the issue released so far." I'm sure that the RIAA has statistics that will say the opposite, but I think I agree with this - just because I can download something doesn't mean I don't want the CD as well.
This is all assuming that the source is owned by the customer. In fact, in the examples you mention, it's almost impossible to do the conversion otherwise.
With MP3s, it's actually quite easy to perform a "conversion" without the source. Yeah, you own the CD, but those MP3s you're downloading weren't ripped from your own personal copy.
Imagine walking into Blockbuster with a receipt for a Beta cassette of Casablanca you purchased in the '80s, and a blank VHS cassette. Will they give you a copy of Casablanca on your VHS tape? Heck no. But you could take the original Beta cassette to Charlie's Media Conversion and get it done there.
So yeah, I see the logic behind the argument (that d/ling MP3s of songs you already own on CD is still bad), but I think it's outdated logic. Thanks to modern technology, information can spread without the confines of physical media. Record companies sell physical media. Record companies are going to be obsolete very very soon.
That's anarchy. The democracy I learned about is giving up your natural rights to protect the rights of others. You have the natural right to bash someone's skull in with a rock, but that interferes with their natural right to live. So in a society, you give up your right to bash someone in the skull with a rock, so that you don't have to worry about someone else bashing you in the head with a rock
The big problem I have whenever people start talking about 'corporations' or 'the government' is that they don't realize that corporations and the government are made up of a bunch of little people trying to get by. A bunch of little people who would like a raise or a Christmas bonus or a good health plan. It's so easy to blame some faceless corporation or government for your problems, but you're really just blaming a bunch of other faceless people.
- My password is slashdot
I'm not saying that this is definitely untrue, but it is important to understand that this is a survey that relies on what people say they do, not what they actually did. Those two different things can be very different.
Congrats, you've just re-iterated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Marketing. This affects ALL studies. And even those that rely on real-world numbers and behaviours miss the "why". You can have position (action) or velocity (explanation), but both are tough to pin down. It's a very rough metaphor.
One important thing to note:
Jupiter = Internet research firm.
Soundscan = music sales tracking company.
Yea, the Internet may very well be taking sales away from college area record stores, but, IMHO, that's more because the students are buying online rather than not buying at all. The other growth statistics for the record industry support this theory (i.e. growth continues)
Just as likely is that those people attracted to Napster are music enthusiasts who buy lots of music.
This makes sense, and supports the idea that the RIAA isn't worried about piracy, but about competition (with non-RIAA music).
--
+&x
If you read what Orrin Hatch has been saying during the hearings, you will probably be surprised to find that he has been very fair to the public and has repeatedly called the music industry and their lackeys when their testimony has slid into the bullshit zone.
Neither. They're protecting the green paper that's lining their pockets, and assuring that there'll be more where it came from. That's all. They don't care that much about WHO is doing the selling - brick-and-mortar shops or online retailers - they just want what they believe is their piece of the pie.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
You don't think all this was motivated by a few kids downloading MP3s, do you? Sure, it's wrong, even if it isn't necessarily hurting anyone (I've used Napster twice; each time it cost me over $100 in CDs I just HAD to get after listening to the MP3.. but that's just me).
I have an article on ZDnet (so kill me) about this very thing: TalkBack Central: RIAA vs. Artist: Will the real victim please stand up. Basically, the RIAA represents the huge record companies, not the artists. And they're being forced to contend with an unpleasant fact: they're dinosaurs, and the mammals are looking about ready for an uprising.
Lemme 'splain. There was a time, long ago, when a record company was instrumental in the recording process. They found musicians, hooked them up with other musicians, hired songwriters, producers, etc. That still happens to an extent: groups like "N'Sync" were manufactured this way. But they're the exception these days.
So now enter computer technology, which lets the artists work in their own private home studios. This was inevitable from the days in the 60s when folks like the Beatles first used the studio as part of the creative process, not just a place to lay down a few tracks. I can get better quality in my home studio than "the lads" every managed (technical, folks -- the talent just ain't there).
So, what DO the record companies do? Primarily, they manufacture and distribute CDs and tapes on a huge scale. Their clout gets their artists in the stores and on the radio. They advance musicians money against eventual royalties for making record and videos, but rarely actually pay for that. Aside from the whole meatspace distribution, they're functional as an engine of transfer in just one more way: up to 95% of the profits made on a record goes into their pockets.
Now enter Napster. Napster has two important things, even if it's morally wrong. First off, it demonstrated a great peer to peer technology, bettered still by GNUtella and others. What this did is fundamental: it moved the problem of electronic distribution from necessarily being a huge server-based project (look at the size of eBay's rig, for example, and they're just dishing up pictures and text) to Just An Application. The second thing they did was on the culture. After Napster, there are millions of college kids, and others, who now think electronic distribution is a fine way to listen to music, not just a cool hack.
So the RIAA is fighting the future. Their client face a serious loss of power in a world in which artists and listeners can have a direct relationship. And really, find a way for those musicians to get paid 25-50 cents per download, and the record companies will have no more place in this world than the noble apatosaurus. They're fighthing Napster especially, because they currently have name-enough to start doing something on the up and up, which they couldn't fight.
That's not the only place they're fighting. You may have notice the current rise in producer-created bands like the aforementioned N'Sync. It's no coincidence -- a group built that may well be owned by the record companies. Contracts have been building up to give the record companies dramatically increasing power. Go buy that new Clarke/Baxter book, and you'll see their names on the copyright page. Go buy just about any CD, and you'll see (C)2000 Sony, Inc. or some-such.
And it gets worse. If you're a consultant, you may have noticed that a major "work for hire" bill passed a few years back, effectively making it harder for you to work for a company and still claim what you did for them is an independent work, and not theirs. Well, the RIAA & co. managed to sneak what's in effect a rider to that bill through, piggy-backed on some cable TV bill, which make "recording artist" just as subject to the new work-for-hire laws as "computer engineer". So unless they had particularly good lawyers a few years back, there's a fair chance than many of the major music acts out today are effectively just employees of their record companies. Which, if nothing else, lets the dinosaurs have serious control of much of today's popular music catalog. Making it all the more difficult for an independent, legal, and micropayment-based distribution system to gain momentum.
-Dave Haynie
- I'd have to climb stairs
- I keep forgetting where my car keys are
- I might forget to bring the CD back to the car, and miss it on my next trip
- It was raining, and
- I'm damn lazy.
Do I feel like an evil theif because I used napster to get a song I already have? No, not really. I'm proud, in fact, to have been using Napster in a legitimate fasion.-Denor
When I was a student, I'd stock up on the sample packs they handed out at the beginning of every quarter. I didn't have to buy any deodorant or shaving gel because I got plenty for free.
Mmmm.. Donuts
My friend uses napster, he has tons, around 500 cds. I don't use napster, I have like 30 cds. I borrow most of my cds from friends, dub to tape, and listen to tons of radio.
Time does not wait.
Curious George
***General Consultant to the Human Race*** My opinions are free. You get what you pay for.
According to the study, Napster users increased their spending on music. That's different than just saying they spend more than others.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If it weren't for Napster, there would be several CDs I'd NEVER buy, since I wouldn't know they existed.
For example: One time I was driving through Central Texas, and was listening to a public radio station. Didn't know which station it was, and it didn't matter: I didn't have anythingh to write on or with as I hurtled down I-35 at 75 mph. I heard some songs by a guy from Canada. I really liked them, but had no way of writing down the artist's name or the station.
One day, I stumbled on some of the same tunes while searching through Napster. I found the artist's name, more of his work, and even his website. I was able to make contact, and even order some of his CDs.
Score one for Napster!
Some times, as I sit here at work I search for different Classical composers. Especially for some of the more obscure ones. As I listen to their work, I can make lists, get on the web, and order their CDs.
Sure, some people abuse Napster. I like to think of it as a brilliant Marketing tool that helps me find the music I want, and SELLS more CDs for the music industry!
Um, I don't know what it's like where you live, but over here, the big record corps spend a lot of money making sure that their big "stars" like N'Suck, Blowstreet Boys, Britney Sphincter and the Sperm Girls are basically all there's to hear in the mainstream radio stations. Same for MTV. The idea is that the hit singles will be very popular with the brain-damaged pre-teen listeners, who will then proceed to buy all the CDs, made up of said hit single plus ten or so tracks of pure filler. And they will love it still, because they've been indoctrinated, and when the next hit single + CD comes out they'll do it again. For those who have been brainwashed, sampling is not the issue - they know damned well what they're buying, and they love it.
The problem is that, when the record companies' oh-so-precious music starts being distributed through alternative channels that they can't control just by throwing money at them, it's only a matter of time before independent artists start - *argh* - getting as much air time as the "official" ones. Then pretty soon they'll start selling well too. And, of course, the independent artists get a lot more money off each CD sale than does an "official" one, so the signed-up people will decide that it's just not worth it anymore to be "official". And then the record companies' whole business is ruined.
They're desperately trying to maintain the illusion that they're still as necessary as always. Well, Lincoln once said something about fooling all the people all the time, and I think that applies here.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Main Problem:
Band A and Band B are in said association. Band A rules. Band B blows. Band A makes mad cash. Band B spends trust fund on CD.
Why should Band A have anything to do with Band B, much less share the dough?
Car thieves acutally buy more cars than other people. Wow, who would have thought it. We should legalize car theft!
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Perhaps rephrasing would help. On the Jupiter Communications website it says that Napster users have a higher increase in spending than other online music fans. That is, other people who have apporximately the same technical capability and just don't use Napster. That is to say, not only do online music users in general buy more music than they did before, Napster users buy more music than before half again as often as other online music users. They have a greater increase in spending. There can be very little dispute here as to a causal relationship.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
You've hilighted one of the biggest conflicts here. While there are certainly a lot of spoiled brats out there who just want to get something for nothing, there are also a lot of people out there acting under a perfectly reasonable moral code. To me, saying "I'll download the mp3 and either delete it within a few weeks or buy the CD" is a perfectly reasonable ethical code. It is also illegal, unfortunately.
There is always trouble in a society when the law loses track of what most people think of as the basic ethical code. Most people would consider the above ok. But it is illegal. Therein lies conflict.
The RIAA refuses to accept what most people consider ethical, and seek to stick to a narrow interpretation of the law, in order that they don't have to change. (Because change scares them.)
This is why some members of congress are so upset about. I think that they really do want the law to mirror people's basic ethics. They want a system where people can "try before you buy" and download music without all that annoying packaging. They want a system where people can share music with their family while musicians still get paid. They want the music industry to build such a system so that most people can do legally what they think they should be able to do ethically. That way, everyone's happy. (Or most everyone, at least.)
The RIAA, not wanting to change, focuses on that subgroup of mp3 users who do things most of the population considers unethical, like copying thousands of hours of music without ever paying the artists, in order to prevent the bulk of the population from doing things that population considers completely ethical, like trying something out before buying. That's a losing proposition in the end, because you can't really fight society. Whether by changes in the law, or by rampant disregard for the law, the RIAA will lose this battle. Hopefully, for the sake of society as a whole, it will be the former, not the latter.
The cake is a pie
Yeah, but the more they push, the more face they risk losing.
--
A is 44.1 kHz / 16 bit. B is a lossy 128 kbps MP3. If I really want to hear the music, I'll pick A.
[TMB]
The survey did not measure the increase in spending at all. It measured what survey respondents said they did - not what they actually did.
The survey respondents (Napster users) have an interest in making Napster look good (because, presumably, they would like to keep using it). That means that there is a very good chance that some (dare I say a lot) of people who probably lied in order to make Napster look better.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
Are surveys even relevant anymore? It seems like with enough of either motivation or number massaging or both, you can get a survey nowadays to say just about anything. Napster has two studies under its belt that say that its users buy more music, and RIAA has that many or more that say the exact opposite. Obviously, something isn't clicking here. I've heard studies that proclaim drinking increases life expectancy, studies that say that the oil on top of a new jar of peanut butter is carcinogenic and causes cancer in rats, even studies that say that eating chocolate may ward of some diseases. Supposedly eating Cheerios fends off heart attacks or leukemia cancer or something. In a day and age when every trade group can pull some study out of their ass favorable to their industry or product, I've learned to just ignore them. One wonders if the judge in the RIAA v. Napster case might do the same.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Bands such as the Grateful Dead adn Phish have been proving for decades that the distribution of free music only promotes a band and its' *Official* music and merchandise. While you may not like their music, it is hard to deny the success of these bands (Phish is one of the top grossing bands in the country as were the dead in their day). They have both allowed the free trade of their concert bootlegs for years, in both analog tapes and digital formats (shn).
I've been in and out of record stores without buying anything for the same reason. One thing record stores could do even without going near the big, scary, dangerous Internet is to have listening stations where you can listen to all the CD's instead of a small selection. This is what I think of every time I'm in a record store. Why can't I sit down in a reclining chair, put on headphones, and hear the music they want to sell me?
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
....is whether these people would buy even MORE music if Napster wasn't there.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I guess I'm the exception then. 'course I don't want to be like everyone else .
.
I've only used Napster once (found the song I wanted, then bought the whole CD less than 24 hours later).
I got hooked on buying singles back in the vinyl days -- 7 inch and 12 inch 45s with otherwise unreleased B-sides, remixes, live tracks, whatever. My enthusiasm for snatching up these nuggets hasn't waned in the transition from vinyl to CD. Hell, I'll even buy "Part I" and "Part II" if I like the artist/song enough.
Now of course, most of these singles and EPs I pick up tend to be (from my US-centric world view) "imports." It's a rare occasion when a US record company releases much more than the album version along with a throwaway b-side, or worse yet, the radio-edit. On the other hand, I've bought a couple "import singles" that each contained over 60 minutes of music.
I miss those neat little 3 inch CDs though . .
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
like, today i'm looking around for the non-remix version of 'Let My Love Open the Door' and have only found it in one place and it's chopped short and glitchy anyway. So, borders here I come.
Downloading and listening is one thing. Selling it is a completely different thing. You're profiting off of someone else's music.
With 10 millions Napster users, with access to nearly all songs recorded, they should buy far less music.
As the normal CD buying rate is 3 CDs by persons by years, you should see a lost of, let say, 2 CDs by Napster user by years. Which means $300 millions lost for the RIAA, that's nearly nothing for the RIAA $15 billions profits from 1999.
This is true only if those users "save" their CDs buying money and invest it in something else which is not proven. Why those users having access to millions of songs whould discover less music they like or want to buy less?
Napster gives users the chance to discover musics before buying them blindly and buy independant artists musics that does not follow the RIAA marketing scheme to be known.
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too"
--- Bouh !!! ---
(I think many do, but the lawyers are telling them that if they don't defend their "rights" they will lose them, and SO FAR the companies are listening more to the lawyers).
Any lawyer saying something like this should be disbarred. It's patently false. If their lawyers don't have any more of a clue than that, then they are in desperate need of new lawyers. There is absolutely no chance of losing your copyright or the right to enforce it just because you don't enforce it in all cases. Those rules apply ONLY TO TRADEMARKS. They can selectively enforce their copyrights as much as they like. There is nothing forcing them to go after Napster users. They are doing it because they want tighter control over the music they distribute. End of story.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That will happen. Its not like you buy less food because you are given free samples at the grocery store. In fact you buy more of that because it was good.
The idea being that artists should get paid and music should be convenient. To say that a you can not own a certain bit pattern if you get it from someone else even if you could legally, yourself, make exactly the same bit pattern seems a little silly.
You are right. It is not only silly, it is also untrue. The courts have found several times (for video AND for computer data) than you can even charge a fee to duplicate someone's copy of copyrighted material or convert it to another format. Examples of this include NTSC -> PAL video conversions, moving vidoe collections from Beta to VHS, and recovering software from outdated media such as 8" diskettes and moving it to a more convinient (e.g. 3.5" diskettes) medium.
If mp3.com is smart, they will appeal the decision against them, as there is precedent that strongly supports their position with regards to mymp3.
Either way, if you as an end user already own a legal copy of a track, you can legally download the same track from the internet. The RIAA may foolishly try to sue you, but if you can afford to fight the lawsuit you will almost certainly win -- there is plenty of legal precendence.
Of course, a lawyer I am not, but I do know that I for one will continue to save myself the hassle of borrowing a turntable and doing an analog -> wav, wav -> ogg conversion and keep downloading the music I already own, as playing mp3's is far more convinient than dealing with vinyl.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
what about singles that are produced? Won't there be a loss in that market?
Feel like eating your mouse?
By this point, I'm wondering if the RIAA vs MP3 battle is more about saving face than protecting their investments?
Perhaps they just don't want to back down from the legal battles that have become so public, and say "oops"
But, like most business folks, they don't have the smarts or immagination to sometimes do the counterintuitive.
Exactly. This study loses a lot of its credibility given that everyone is buying more music. CD sales were up 8 percent. These are prosperous times, and it's hard to judge how much Napster is bumping up music sales versus how much everyone's fat stock portfolio is :)
It reminds me a lot of local politicians where I live who try to take credit for the reduction in crime we've seen over the past few years. Uhm, well Mr. Mayor, the entire country has seen a drop in crime in the last decade...
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
The problem with this is that it's not everywhere. Sure, you may have a DJ counter at you local Future Shop, but there's no such thing at the Future Shop here in Saskatoon - nor is there in any other store in the city. What am I supposed to do, drive 2 1/2 hours to Regina? What about those living in rural communities? Heck, I'd argue that most people need to listen to the songs multiple times before they can make a well-informed decision. I imagine that they'd ask you to reliquish the DJ counter after a certain amount of time, probably not near long enough to make a good decision. Hellooo, Napster...
I'm really surprised you didn't find Nanci Griffith. I've got at least 15 songs of hers in MP3. We probably aren't on Napster at the same time though. I ripped all of those from my own CD's, because I got into Napster back before many mp3's were actually there. But I still look, and I find quite a bit. I was amazed at the amount of Kate Wolf that you can find.
btw, if you haven't tried Nick Drake, I wholeheartedly recommend him.
"Saskatoon", "Regina".
:)
Canadian city names are funny.
The old system of music distribution expects you to show your support for the artist by paying for the CD before you've had a chance to hear all of the songs on it. This is great for one hit wonder bands, because it suckers a lot of people into paying money for cds that are mostly filler.
The new system (not just Napster specifically, but any kind of mp3 distribution) changes this by allowing you to hear all that an artist has to offer before you decide whether or not to show your financial support. This not only allows you to avoid one hit wonders, as you pointed out, but also allows you to branch off from your established musical tastes and experiment in ways that you couldn't before. For example, I've never walked into a music store and paid for a cd from a band I'd never heard of before... I would be running the risk of throwing my money away. However, through mp3 services like Napster or Scour or mp3.com, I've been able to explore and download stuff just to see what it sounds like. This has led me to discover several incredibly talented bands that I otherwise never would have heard of. I then am able to decide which bands I'll support and which ones I won't.
If the recording industry actually cared about its customers, they would be scrambling to embrace the new system and find a way to make it work better (i.e. find a way to allow listeners to quickly and easily pay a reasonable amount of money to the artist). Instead, they whine and cry and slap lawsuits left right and center in a vain attempt to keep the old system alive. Rather than adapting to the changing environment, they are stubbornly trying to force the world to adapt to their model.
Bah, that's my rant for the day.
--
www.scorbett.ca
It could still be a case of collinearity. Interest in new music does not remain static. I certainly don't buy as many albums as I used to. People whose music interest are increasing would be likely both to buy more AND to try alternative music sources like Napster. Would these people have purchased more or less had Napster not been available? This question remains unanswered.
There were numerous comments wondering what exactly happened to Orrin. Everyone's used to seeing him as the enemy, but somehow he came up with a bucketload of common sense on this particular issue.
Does an MP3 inherently have any value associated with it in the same way a ten dollar bill does?
IMHO, i think it's more like making a copy of the designer shirt your friend just bought out of your own materials. And wearing it (i.e. not selling it again).
Cover art won't save CDs the same way that cover art didn't save LPs. The popularization of CDs put an end to creative packaging. For a great example, compare Led Zeppelin's "Physical Graffiti" on LP and CD.
Even CDs that try to provide as much as LPs did end up giving you postage stamp art and lyrics in unreadably small type. But that wasn't enough to save LPs. CDs offer generally better fidelity, better media life and far more convenience.
Beside, why do you need great packaging when you can go to the artist's web site and get much more information than can be packed even onto an elaborate LP package?
So, which is better, 3 cd's for $45 that have 12 good songs, or 1 cd for $18-$20 that has 15 good songs on it?
i think it's great to see results like this. personally, there are a bunch of cds that i own that i never would have considered buying without napster, and others that i was unsure about. being able to hear more of an album than the 'big radio single' can definately help ones decision into whether or not to buy a cd. there are other times when i've found things on napster 'accidentally' while searching for something else and it turned out to be good, so i've checked out more and then finally bought the cd. it's a great way to recommend things to people aswell. i am not a big radio listener these days, so if someone says 'hey, have you heard this band, they're pretty good' i'll then take a look on napster and have a listen. most of the time the result is that i end up buying the cd and deleting the mp3s. other times the mp3 sucks so i just delete it and save the $15 that i could have wasted on a cd.
i think that this last point could be one of the fears that the music industry has. by picking what they feel is the strongest or catchiest song on an album for the single, they are trying to lure you into buying the album. many times even if the single is good, the rest of the album can be crap. if you can 'try before you buy' the chances of you wasting your money (and feeding the record companies) drop. sure, they probably make alot of money from 'good' artists, but there are alot of 'one hit wonder' type bands that they'll lose out on if people are able to see that everything else is crap before they waste their money on it.
What do the good know...except what the bad teach them in their excesses? - Clive Barker
>I'm exposed to more groups that I wouldnt' have heard of, and I'm much more likely to hear a song or two and like it, then go out and buy the album
Aha! Here is the problem... you aren't buying the music they want you to! You don't think they actually care about you buying a CD from some band that few have ever heard of, do you (despite the fact that their music is really good, afterall).
Nope, they would be perfectly happy if you just ran out and bought CD's of music you hear on the radio. After all, the recording industry has gone to great pains over the years to bring the 'free' radio airplay market under their own control, so they can decide which artists' music you hear and then are likely to go out and buy.
Napster interferes with the RIAA's 'try before you buy' mechanism, the corporately-controlled audio broadcast industry.
Ever wonder why no-talent, interchangeable, over-produced 'artists' like n-Sync and Back Street Boys and Britney Spears and the like get played to death 500 times a day on a million radio stations across the country and their crap CD with one or two popular singles zoom to #1 on the charts with little or no concert tour support or any other visible means of promoting the work? Kids are basically told what music they should like and buy by nationally programmed top 40 radio shows broadcast identically in each and every market by the huge media conglomerates who have bought out all the local stations.
This struck me the other day as I was flipping channels and came across the 'Britney Spears Story' on VH1 or something, and I stopped just long engough to catch the soundbite from one of Sony's executives talking about what a great artist she was because of the x million "units" that she sold in the first few months of her new album.
He didn't talk about her talent, or how she was able to reach her fans, or anything else that I would think defines a "great artist." She is "great" because they are able to make a huge profit off a single artist and sell millions of copies of the CD.
They would rather have 5-10 artists who collectively sell 100 million "units" than 500 who also collectively sell as many CD's. Overhead and economies of scale. Today, it seems its all about maximizing profit margin, growing revenue and cutting expenses. Why put the energy into signing, developing, producing, promoting and distributing the works of hundreds of artists when there is a higher return to be earned by concentrating efforts on much fewer?
I'm sure this has been observed before, but Napster undermines the control that the Recording Industry has over the making ans selling of music. If CD sales are up partially because of Napster, the RIAA sure doesn't care, because record sales lost to piracy isn't the real issue, after all, is it?
It is the erosion of their stranglehold on the production and distribution of recorded music that has them locked in a life and death strugle with Napster.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I think even the most bone-headed music industry executive knows that many people that download mp3s often buy CDs based on those downloads.
This is not what they are worried about. Right now, most people like the convenience and the guaranteed quality (sound quality, not always music quality) of buying a CD. It actually helps sales if people are allowed to sample the music! But what happens when, in the near future, Joe Consumer has an easy way to download a pirated album (or, even worse for the industry, download directly from the artist!) and make a high-quality copy onto whatever convenient format he wants.
Ok, I know a lot of you already do this, but I'm talking about something the general public could use, like those fabled "internet appliances". Something easy to use that would guarantee good sound quality on a format that people want. Most consumers don't want to have to listen to music on their computer. And seriously, it can be a lot of work to find and download the exact tracks you are looking for (well, more work than just buying the CD).
My point is that the industry is probably looking down the road and seeing something that could conceivably ruin them - artists selling music directly to average, everyday consumers! They want to nip it in the bud. I know everyone thinks the RIAA is just plain stupid or short-sighted, but it seems like they know what's going on - they don't want people to get used to the idea of quality music available on the net (unless they can control it).
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Could point out where it states this, I'd like to see it... the most detail I can find is "New research from Jupiter shows that Napster users are 45 percent more likely to have increased their music purchasing than non-Napster users.", which is a very ambiguous statement at best. They even suckered me into signing up so I could try and find some more explicit information on their research study, but to no avail... of course, won't Ingok of the Arctic Tundra be surprised when he starts getting their spam mail...
/. of bias, and jupiter of just trying to show what looks good, and of us only looking at this study and not the other because we want to feel better about our side. But it's true. B4 I started d/ling Mp3s I had bought only one cd.
Now one thing people should think about, is who stands to gain from all this. RIAA is backing their study because they have a huge financial incentive. It has nothing to do with artists' rights for them. Look at their (members') track record for trying to take away artists' rights to their own music. So their arguments are just a face for them to get more money.
Where's the money in it for us? We are just in it to listen to good music, and to make informed choices before we buy; we have no billion dollar industry to defend. So our arguments are probably more valid.
The RIAA spokespeople say as a last resort that it ultimately doesn't matter whether MP3s increase sales or damage them, because they are a stealing of property, but what is intellectual property? "Intellectual property" is an institution created in this country for the good of the people (at large, not the copyright holders) to encourage intellectual production (of books, inventions, etc.) by rewarding the innovators. If the innovator is already getting rewarded without controlling the consumption of her/his work then i.p. is completely unneccessary because innovation is encouraged, except that i.p. now works great as a market control device in violation of antitrust. This is what Microsoft is doing and this is what RIAA and MPAA are doing. i.p. is an entirely outdated concept.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Tangentially related: I heard on the news this morning that Bertelsmann will be buying CDNow. Apparently they had lost $200 million and are throwing in the towel.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
But when they create the mp3 cd player or when the regular mp3 players for your stereo get less expensive are you still going to want to buy music CD's or rather a nice little burner(with CD-R's)?
The way I look at it is... Would you buy a piece of software, for example M$ Office deluxe for like 400 bucks when somehow miraculously a burned CD just appeared in your hard drive... Maybe you want your own registered version... (but I doubt it...)
Now on the other hand check this out... Napster Bad... Money Good!!!
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that everyone should be able to do whatever they want to do; I'm saying that everyone should be able to do what people generally agree that they should be able to do.
I cannot conceive of a democracy in which the majority votes to make it legal to bash someone in the skull with a rock. I do believe, however, that a vote of everyone living in the US right now would show that the majority believes that people should be allowed to smoke weed and use Napster -- which, in my opinion, means that both of these things should be legal, end of story. In the unlikely event that Napster starts putting musicians out of business and the music scene in the US dries up completely, the people can vote themselves some good old-fashioned draconian copyright laws, and all will be well.
In short, I distrust a large, commercial interest which claims that laws that do not correspond with the will of the people are in the people's best interests.
Read "Nazi Germany" for "corporations and/or the government." How has your argument changed? An organization should be judged by what it does, and I don't like what the RIAA does. I would feel the same way if it was run by a massive computer, an evil genius, or a farm full of happy puppies.You can't steal something that doesn't exist yet. "Potential" profits? YOu're not taking money from them. So don't use the word "steal".
If I compete with Microsoft and make an office suite 100% compatible 10X faster and 1/3 the memory usage with twice the features and it's GPL'd and 75% of businesses switch to my program then I am a thief, because if I hadn't competed with Microsoft then they would have made a bunch more money.
I think the RIAA knows that they are selling more CDs because of Napster, but I also think they know they could make so much more. Because of previewing, record companies can no longer push some one-hit wonder on us and make us buy the CD only to see it's one good song plus 50 minutes of filler.
No more Jimmy Rays. What? Don't you remember him? I didn't think so, but I bet anyone who bought his CD because of that song "Are You Jimmy Ray?" feels likes an idiot now.
Napster would have totally destroyed the 80's.
The statement "Copying mp3s is not stealing because the original is left behind" is pretty clearly true, but it says absolutely nothing about the act of copying mp3s except that it is not stealing. However, the implication is that since it is not stealing, it is ok. The whole point of my counterfeiting analogy was to disprove this implication by counterexample. Counterfeiting is an act which clearly leaves the original intact, yet which just as clearly has been deemed 'not ok' and made illegal.
Arguing that copying mp3s is ok because it is not stealing just confuses the issue. It's not kidnapping either, but that doesn't imply that it is ok. The real debate should be based on two questions: what are the economic and social effects of freely copying digital property, and do those effects provide a net benefit versus the effects of suppressing copying via legal and physical means.
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
If you are a serious fan of a band, you would spend as much as you could(within a reasonable amount) to purchase their album even if you could download it in mp3 version. It's just nice to have the actual album cover and lyrics, and to know that in years to come this could be meaningful for a long term fan and can be passed on to others!
- Just some thoughts from a bird brain.
A year or 2 ago, 50% of the cds I bought sucked and I had no way to find out until after i bought it; like buying a DVD only because of the trailer of the movie.
I just find the whole thing convienent, honestly. There's plenty of mom-and-pop video shops that rent VHS and DVD movies... usually they get their stock by simply going to the nearby Tower and buying the films as they are released.
This could probably be considered a worse thing solely for the reason that the shop is continuing to make money off a purchase (of which the studios don't see a dime of) by renting it... but it is common practice and widely "accepted". Of course, I use that term loosely.
In THIS case... Someone buys the CD, rips it to MP3 and gives it away for free to other users who download from them. I'm not even going to begin to get into the fair use laws, I'm sure everyone has them memorized by now.
Now, with this survey (which, no doubt, the results of which actually hold true for a LOT of us), they're saying that Napster sharing has increased sales by allowing people to preview what they were interested in.
I think the same could hold true for the video shops. Most people rent a movie once and forget about it. Okay, so, there's lost money here because the video shop is probably not quite doing things legally... However, if someone rents the video, likes it, buys it... nobody complains.
Apples and oranges, perhaps... but there are a lot of strong parallels here.
You can just go to hell, but be sure to bring back some souviners...
I have a nice set of headphones... only about $40, but very good sound... on which I can hear defects in most 128kbps MP3s--warbling, occasional dropped background notes, cymbals sound washed out, etc. On a bad day I hear bugs in Winamp's decoder.
However, if I encode with a stable version of LAME at about 192kpbs, and I use either CDParanoia on my Toshiba or anything on my Plextor for ripping, 95% of tracks sound exactly the same (I have "accidentally" done a blind test before... thought I was playing the CD from the sound quality, and then switched consoles later and found it was mpg123 running).
The fuss is because MP3s are a good enough copy for most people, and very very easy to get with tools like Napster. Consumers have had CDRs for years, and while I'm sure the recording industry was not pleased about that, it was too inconvenient for most people to matter. (Some of that inconvenience is arguable *because* of the recording industry, but I think jitter on audio tracks falls under the "stupidity before malice" heading.)
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
The modern Christian world has used the bible for its basis for many of the oldest laws. This borrowing the T-shirt analogy is much like the 9th commandment "don't covet your neighbors stuff". When that was written, the world didn't have mass prodcued stuff or a very successful economey based on mass consumerism. In todays world, wanting to get one CmdrTaco's latest toys is a Good Thing (TM)
There are so many alternatives to Napster, including FTP, useNet, IRC, etc., that it would take an EXTREME amount of effort to stop the transfer of illegal mp3s completely. Even if Microsoft put a filter in the next version Windows or Internet Explorer to block mp3s, others could use the less regulated Linux or UNIX OS's to get around this. It seems that the internet is too client-based to offer a simple solution to a way in which the files being transferred could be regulated. Despite this, the demise of Napster and Napster-like programs would help stop illegal mp3 gathering for those who are less knowledgable of alternative ways to find mp3s.
- Just some thoughts from a bird brain.
You understand my point better then the other posters. (Hint, wal-mart doesn't have many folk disks, nor does Best Buy, at least not as I like my music. So I can only go to a small store)
the problem however is this little record store has several thousand CDs that I might be interested in. I don't have time to listen to 1000 CDs just to choose which one to buy. I can listen to about 6 CDs every day at work though, which will cover their entire inventory in a year and allow listening to the ones I really like more often.
right, but that's not physical. it's POTENTIAL and it's HYPOTHETICAL. we are not TAKING something from the owner when we steal intellectual property, we are really making an EXACT COPY of it, not TAKING something from the owner, in the same way as stealing their shirt or their money or their car. we are not depriving the owner of something physical. what we are depriving them of is POTENTIAL to GAIN money from the product. whether that makes a difference needs to be explored, not ignored.
i could live a little longer in this prison
I can't even remember all the times I've heard a song on the radio, loved it, then gone out to buy the album only to find that the one song I heard was the ONLY good one, or that the radio version wasn't even on the album.
I would of killed for Napster then, I would of saved a fortune. Anyone remember "Anything But The Girl" their big song, Missing or something like that. It was a hidden track on the album, the rest of their music was NOTHING like that song!! I was pissed! I would of bought the single had I known...
Or the most probable explanation around my university: Tuition going up 20% each year!
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Every time this subject comes up, whether related to Napster or software piracy or whatever, somebody brings up this red herring that it's not stealing because you are making a copy. Fine, don't call it stealing; call it counterfeiting or sharing or whatever you want. It's irrelevant; a semantic wild-goose chase. The only relevant issues are the costs and benefits of the behavior vs. the costs and benefits of discouraging or preventing the behavior.
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
A is 44.1 kHz / 16 bit. B is a lossy 128 kbps MP3. If I really want to hear the music, I'll pick A.
1. To play in your car? I really want a car mp3 player.
2. To "hear the music" you don't need high fidelity reproduction but an active imagination.
At least I think so, but I'm old. Once upon a time before computers I owned a high-tech stereo system, the hottest piece of electronic gadgetry I had. It read sound data off my collection of engraved 12"-radius vinyl discs, ones I had worn flat with diamond needles, achieving way less reproduction accuracy than you get nowadays out of a $49 K-Mart boom box. The cover art on my discs was infinitely (Ok, four times) better but all in all despite my costly and superb walnut-cased speakers the overall fidelity was inferior. Here's the point: in no way whatsoever was what I heard inferior to the technically-better-reproduced stuff youse punks listen to today.
By the way, probably more than half of the albums I bought back then, probably two thirds, I'd heard first on a cassette I got from a pal. A bootleg, a Lars-go-piss-yourself-in-fear illegal copy, dig? I wouldn't have ever bought the vinyl if I hadn't ripped off the cassette, you know what I mean? And then the record co.s wouldn't have ever sold that particular copy, hey Lars how hard can this be to grasp? Me and all my friends too. Oddly enough the record companies didn't go broke way back then. Jack Valenti is a moron.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
I would submit that decreased sales in and near college towns is indicative of an advanced wired society. University's were the first to offer highspeed internet connections to a population base. Due to this high bandwidth, University towns also have tended to be the first where residential highspeed connections have become avaible. As such these communities are more advanced in utilization of a wired society's conveniences. So, instead of trotting down to the neighborhood cd store, residents of these communities, I submit, will be more likely to shop online. Consider, your listening to streaming audio and are really struck by a particular tune. Do you A. write down the artist on a piece of paper and head out to the music store the next day or B. place an order on-line? As for the Jupiter study, remember cassette tapes. The music industry used to cry that taping was destroying the industry, yet study after study indicated tapers bought more music than non-tapers.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
So they're just pursuing the lawsuits to promote ethical concepts? I wonder if the RIAA board knows about this...
I can't imagine that if the execs thought that they were actually increasing sales by condoning Napster that they would continue. Maybe the musicians would keep it up, to preserve "the integrity of the performance," but the suits would drop the case in a second.
I bought my CD player in 1987. I never paid more than $10 for a CD (unless it was an import) till the mid 1990s.
Fuuny thing is the amount artist get per CD hasn't gone up since that time and production costs have gone way down.
I don't think that the music industry is quite getting a grasp on the "new-age" spending. I'm starting to wonder if they want me to buy a one-time, $18 CD because I heard one song on the radio (what usually happened before I had Napster), or hear a song on the radio, go home, download some other songs, become an avid fan, spend $30 on a concert ticket, $20 on a t-shirt, and whatever else I feel like doing, EVERYTIME THEY COME TO TOWN. (, for me :) :), but they should take the new distribution for all it's worth. It's more of a help than a hassle.
I'm not saying what I do is right (I haven't bought a CD in ages, and I just ordered my Mptrip portable MP3-ROM player today
You actually purchased CDs having no idea what was on them?! Do you never listen to the radio? Did you actually look at a prospective purchase and say, "Gee, I've never heard any of these titles, but I'm gonna buy it anyways."
Frankly, I find this pretty incredible, and therefore conclude that the rest of your statements are lies as well.
like buying a DVD only because of the trailer of the movie.
Anybody who buys a DVD after seeing only a movie trailer is a moron. Like somebody who buys a car because the picture on the billboard looked so cool.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I know I personally have bought more CDs since using Napster, because I've been able to try before I buy! The reason I didn't buy as many before is that I'm quite cautious about my spending because I budget myself quite tightly, as most students do. I used to wait for friend to get the CD so I could listen to the material first. I was especially able to do this when there was a Blockbuster music located in my area because they let you listen to anything in the store! However now with Napster, I am able to preview what I potentially want to buy. If I just like the single from a CD, I will keep that as apposed to buying a $6 single, because I know it will be waste of money and I will tire of it shortly. However lately I've been able to find some wonderful thing that have inspired me to buy some sensational albums I know I'll never tire of.
NOW TO MY POINT: If people on Napster didn't buy CDs, the system would die. Napster relys on people (at this point mostly the warez-like IRC release groups, but not for much longer). People are refining their taste in music and sharing their MP3'd collections with the world. If this was not the case, if it were just petty theft of each song without care for the system, then Napster would die, because it would run out of new material.
-- From my Best Friend (Written to me over ICQ): "i was gonna go to a party...but i had to reinstall windows"
Kind of like how university students buy less music, but can't say that napster is the cause of this. High tution costs would obviously have no effect on the amount of music they buy. Funny how the RIAA doesn't see that this argument works both ways.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
That's a pithy sound bite, but not necessarily true. If Napster users buy much less music than they would have otherwise, then it would be in the industry's best economic interest to stop Napster at all costs.
It would also be in the auto maker's interest to ensure metal and plastics are weak and never improve, as more people would then have to buy more cars more often. The point is that there are many things companies can do, ofetn unethical, to boost their sales. There are a lot situations that an industry's consumers can be forced into that would increase their revenue. Crushing online music distribution may indeed bring sales even higher, but at the cost of innovation and forward movement. No doubt most executives would be happy to make this tradeoff; however, the ideal of the free market is to PROMOTE new ideas, not step on them.
this follows the pleasure principle. We do something, it feels good, we do it again, same feeling but lesser. Music is a drug like any other. The more you are exposed to it, the more you want of it. The more you use it, the more you appreciate it. The more you appreciate it, the more you are willing to pay for it. And if you really like it, you can never get enough. Infinite demand, matches the infinite supply of digital music, added value makes the cash. Buying a CD is added value. But control is a difficult thing to give up, so we gets lots of lawsuits.
One of my favorite Homer quotes, in talking about our consumeristic culture (he was refering to free cookies)
"Oh I see, first you get us addicted, then you jack up the price."
With MP3, it's about getting people addicted, and then realizing that there are purer forms of digital crack out there, much of it on CD.
of course techonology could chagne this...again...
--
+&x
Actually, I'd have to side with the people who are saying correlation doesn't mean causation. You can't really tell if sales have gone up unless you factor in a few more things that just sales increasing. For example:
Have sales increased faster than inflation?
If online music didn't exist, would sales have increased anyway?
If sales would have increased anyway, would it have increased as much?
What exactly entails "visiting music destinations on the Web"? Does that mean listening to the samples at CDNow.com right before I buy the CD?
In any case, who cares. All it does is provide more statistics to throw around when arguing with your friends, I don't think it matters much in a court case.
Hemos says: "... just because I can download something doesn't mean I don't want the CD as well."
That may be true for most people today, but what happens when it becomes just as easy to play MP3s as it is to play CDs? There are already portable players which do a better job at providing music while exercising that a Walkman ever did. How long will it be before there are stereo components that play straight from the Internet? Or car players that play from hundreds of hours of music stored on cheap user-writeable media? And they tell you what's playing instead of just a track number?
It worries me that there are now signs that movies are going to get MP3'd. If we don't figure out a way to bring the entertainment industry (or a more modern replacement) into the digital age without cutting off their revenue stream, then before too long the only new content being produced will be Coke and Pepsi commercials.
I agree that low bit rate MP3s are distinctly worse than CD quality audio. However, I don't know where you come up with your comment for 256kbps encoding that "at that point, your file size is only a factor of ~2 away from the raw 44.1/16 audio."
There's 44100 samples/sec * 2 channels * 16 bits / channel = 1411200 bits/sec, which is still a factor of five greater than 256 kbits/sec.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
Nah. All you've got to doo is take a peek at their paychecks, and that'll pretty much vaildate that Napster users are big consumers.
-- ~Can money pay for all the days I've lived awake, but half asleep?~
I hear that. I JUST broke 100gig (last night actually) I like to think that I have a moderate collection. More than half the MP3s are MY CDs that I bought and paid for. A quarter of them are my roommate's CDs. I think I have about 200meg of songs I got off Napster, the rest I borrowed from friends so I could have them on my computer. My computer is then hooked to the stereo in the basement where it acts as our Jukebox. :-)
Personally, I see nothing wrong with this, I love Napster because if I don't have a particular song and I can't seem to find it in the stores (we are 70s and 80s freaks and even with all the compilation CDs it's hard to find the right song) I can just jump on and download it. I WOULD of bought it and made it an MP3 myself, but I couldn't find it. Is that my fault? I don't think so. They can kiss my butt unless they make EVERY song readily available so I don't have to go onto Napster to find the songs I want.
Sean
Why not? And to fuel this, has anyone else had a problem with Some versions of napster cutting off the last few seconds of a song? Is it possible to configure, say a linux client where you have the source to play with, to do this automatically. Just for kicks look up some popular song, then sort by length.
Granted there are probably different rips at work, some people add or delete silence at the beginning and end (Please folks don't delete the 1-2 seconds you normally get between CD's, it's tacky), however nothing is more annoying than getting almost all the way through a song and the last few notes get cut off before they fade. It's worse than those damn cuckoos. It's like being lulled to sleep by a sweet lullaby, then interrupted with a salvation-army band. And then there are 128 encodings (the 56k editions as I call them). Ick.
I say you're absolutely right. They're beating napster users to the store with mediocre copies. That's what this survey shows. But hey, whatever works.
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
but i don't really think it's a red herring, i think it's an important distinction that actually gets at the heart of the issue. EVERYONE knows stealing is wrong, it's uninteresting to even bother to debate that. i think the Napster issue -IS- intersting. what constitutes property? how best is society served? Napster users aren't printing their own money. all i ask is that people think about this issue without thinking "stealing" in their minds.
and as for the costs and benefits of promoting vs. discouraging the free distribution of music, well as a musician i'm all for it. i'm much more concerned with holding this debate intelligently, though, rather than actually seeing that it comes out in my favor.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Well no wonder the RIAA doesn't like it. They need to sell albums, and how are they going to do that if you can tell the cream from the crap? Remember that 90% of everything is crap, so that means that they'll lose 90% of their artists. So buy a boy band CD today and help the poor little RIAA!
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Rather than Napster causing people to buy more CDs, wouldn't it make a lot more sense that people that buy more CDs use Napster. How many non-music lovers do you know that use Napster? You simply mistake cause for effect.
(and if you have a T3 or something, it's still faster, because you can have a multi-cdrw-dvd-jukebox-60x-whatever cheaper than the cost of the T3).
That assumes that I pay for the T3 solely for the purpose of downloading MP3s. If I have the T3 for work, or some other purpose, then it doesn't become a cost factor when comparing the cost of downloading versus ripping my own mp3s.
because if they close napster, a dozen similar sites will appear
Do you even know what Napster is? Hint: It's not a website.
Of course, if at some point it would be easier to me downloading all the cd rather than buying it
Many of us download mp3s AND buy the cd. This seems to be supported by the Jupiter study. This will probably become much more prevalent if we could get the damn record companies out of the way. Then we could more directly support the artists we like.
Instead, they should try to make the buying thing easier, and give it added value(maybe you buy mp3 on the net and get some merchandising?), so people will still prefer buying it than pirating it.
They also need to drop the prices quite a bit. They've been screwing us over for far too long. At least the FTC finally caught them on something (price fixing). Too bad they didn't have to refund the $400+ million they overcharged consumers.
Then the thing I'd really like to see (but is probably the most unlikely of all) is for them to start giving the artists better deals, allowing them to retain ownership of their music, and paying them more. The contracts that most artists have today are a sad, sick joke. Whether the artists are to blame for signing or not, the industry is definitely taking advantage of its position of power and screwing most artists over. Would be even more nice to see artists abandoning the industry and working out a new system so that we fans can deal with them more directly. We would get the music cheaper and they would get paid more, while retaining ownership of their music.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Don't you have to wonder how many thousands of people would never have heard of or used Napster, but for the publicity generated by the RIAA lawsuit.
Dumb move, Hillary.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Why? Because I refuse to accept the lowest common denominator of pop music, forget everything I've learned about good music in the course of the past few decades and just go listen to crappy boy bands like a good zombie? If that makes me an elitist, then that's what I am.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Aaaaaah, but if Mrs. Rosen and friends have it their way, you don't buy immaterial goods, you acquire a license to them. Just like you do with proprietary software. You don't own your copy of Windows; Microsoft does. You don't own your Metallica album; Polygram or Universal or EMI or whoever does. Yes, goodbye to the first sale doctrine; "how much do I pay for breathing" corporate dictatorship, here we come!
:)
I guess I'm just bitter.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Just after 1992 the little drugstore down the street in Normal, IL (Illinois State), sold new release CD's from between $10.99 and $12.99...or something very close to that. The last time I popped into a record store at University of Illinois, almost everything was over $15 and a record store in the loop in Chicago sold me Fatboy Slim's latest for $18. Best Buy is still the best retail joint to buy from, but they are starting to get into that $13-15 range rather than the $11-12 range a couple of years ago.
It turns out pr0n viewers are having less sex than is the rest of the population as a whole. Said Jupiter researchers: "They may be enthusiasts, but they're still not getting any."
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I can easily believe that Napster users buy more CDs. How many people have rented movies and copied them? I am a HUGE movie buff. I have over 800 movies, and that's not including the copied ones.
Yes, I have illegal copies, but you know what, out of my 200 some odd copies, there are MAYBE a dozen that I didn't buy as well. Just like MP3s, the copies are good, but they just can't beat an original. Of course now everything I buy is DVD and there's a HUGE difference, but the fact is that I copied the movie because I liked it and wanted it. As soon as it was available, I bought it. I love DVDs now, most the time they are on DVD the same time you can rent them. Only ones I don't have copies of are ones that they never released to own... Took a while for Hackers to be released to own, still waiting on PCU...
Sorry getting off topic. There will NEVER see them agree Napster is good for business. If you say Naptster users buy more then they'll reply that they would of bought more. If they take down Napster and a survey says that Napster encouraged CD purchasing, they'd reply saying that people are mad at them for getting Napster shut down and are boycotting them. There is no winning.
Sean
oops, I did it again.
downloaded your song,
and listened for free,
ooh baby baby -
yeah, you think I'm in love,
will pay $20 bucks
I'm not that gullible!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You just know some not particularly moral people.
I use Napster and I buy more music than I would if I didn't.
I don't have any friends who burn CD-Rs from mp3s off Napster, and I have a few friends who use Napster and also buy CDs.
Yes, I know, this isn't a popular thing to say around here. I really wish people would figure this out. The thinking here seems to be backwards.
Look at free software. Now here's a place where we got it right. Personally, I think Stallman's views on software morality are a bit extreme, but the reason the GNU project is so respectable -- even to someone like me who believes in strong intellectual property rights -- is that he didn't say "I think the current system is bad, so I'll break the law"; he said "I think the current system is bad, so I'll make a better system."
I've heard it argued that musicians have no intrinsic right to profit from their music. I think this is insane. If you want to argue from this angle, you don't have an intrinsic right to free music.
Like it or not, Metallica music isn't a natural resource. It wasn't an obvious thing somebody discovered. It was created by Metallica. If you think that Metallica shouldn't earn money for what they do, that's fine. But don't go online and download Metallica music and think you're not stealing. I have more respect for a thief who says he's a thief than a thief who claims he's standing up for his rights. I'm surprised more people don't.
The most important part of all of this is that there IS a free-software equivilent to music. There are countless bands online who are more than happy to provide MP3s of their music for free. And if you haven't seriously checked them out, you really should, because there are some great songs out there.
With all the free music out there, the argument that downloading Metallica is a right has gotten really tired. If you're one of these people, maybe you should reevaluate your position. You say that you buy a lot of music anyway, you say the RIAA is big and evil, you say Metallica is invoking morally wrong intellectual rights. I say you wanted something, you stole it, and now you're trying to make yourself feel a little bit better.
Great! This is the exact situation that the website www.fairtunes.com is trying to address. The site allows you to send money to artists DIRECTLY. You charge a completely voluntary amount to your credit card and Fairtunes cuts a check and ensures it gets to your artist. No more record company. No more middle man. The money goes to the people actually making the music.
Matt
Before I ran out and bought a bunch of CD's I checked out some tracks for myself. This is obvious on it's face. Strip away all the blather and what I want is to listen to these tracks on a CD Player, in my car, @ home, whatever.
Just about everyone on Napster has wised up and they put down their connection speed as 14.4. If you pay attention to ping speeds and go to someone with a fast connection, you find that they disconnect halfway through your download with alarm consistency. I'd say two months ago I could find anything easily and could download it quickly. In the past month downloads ABSOLUTELY CRAWL, and a good portion of them abort halfway through.
Let's face it: The only reason Napster has exceled is because it basically forces people to return the favour (i.e. you grab files then you are also sharing them), however most people when given their own choice don't WANT to return the favour! See the 14.4 scenario : No one wants people to see them as a good server. I would wager that a good portion of people have there serving directory nice and cleaned out to make sure they are listing no files themselves.
the band marillion is trying to beat the system with their self-promotion method because they are tired of the meager income that today's recording industry provides.
http://www.marillion.com/discog/12/index.html
The band is trying to network with their fans to beat the mainstream record industry.
Many people, including many media organizations and the music industry fail to see that Napster is only the tool. Copying information illegally has been around much longer than Napster. How many people have VHS tapes of movies that they copied?
My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
..And you're only allowed to profit off of someone else's music if you're in the RIAA...
--Phil (I have certainly bought CDs because I heard the music first in mp3s.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
On several occassions, I've downloaded a couple songs from Napster by a particular artist, decided I liked the music, and went out and bought the CD.
It's easy enough to find a specific song on Napster, but finding an entire album is another thing. IMO it's a great try-before-you-buy tool.
Azerov
Guys, how can it be alive if it's just filled with gas?
Doh... lost a factor of 4. That's what I get for doing it in my head while half asleep. Thanks for pointing it out. :-)=
[TMB]
Apparently they do, but according to The Register, "the data was collected before Napster's launch". I can't say I've seen their survey myself (I only heard about this today and I have an important meeting at the pub right now) but I wouldn't be surprised.
--
Everything I know in life I learnt from
Er... that is, I lost a factor of 2. I should have come up with "256kbps MP3s are 4 times bigger than the equivalent 44.1/16 raw audio" instead of 2.
:-(
Still half-asleep apparently.
[TMB]
Ugh, troll. But I'll bite.
So those of us violating a government sanctioned monopoly, ie Copyright, are communists? Funny, I always thought communists advocated government controll of the economy. Go read a book on economics or two and get back to us.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
I think we can all agree that Hilary Rosen topless is a bad thing, and if that's what happens when people use Napster, I'd rather they stop.
Theft declared legal:
Following a new Jupiter report that shoplifters are more likely to purchase items from retail stores than non-theifs, the United States has decriminalized all forms of theft.
You know, sometimes it's amazing what you don't realize that people don't understand if you don't stop and adjust your thinking... And then explain to them.
I hope that the people out there who also understand this happen to be people in positions of power or some sort of authority
(whether by the hoi polloi, or the understanding of the Wizard of OZ.)
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
I do indeed decide what CDs to get by sampling off Napster.
However, then I get the gf to borrow one from HMV where she works and run off a copy for home, copy for work, and copy for the car...
I wonder when the RIAA is going to realize what Astarte CD-Copy is for...
I don't buy CDs and I don't use napster. Does that mean if I start using Napster I'm more likely to buy a CD? NO!
All this study says is people who listen to music have more interest in Napster. For more information read my article in "Duh!" magazine!
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
I heard "Kryptonite" by Three Doors Down. I liked it enough to search for them on Napster, and I found about 6 other songs. After listening to them for a while, I'm probably going to go get their CD in the near future. Normally, I probably would not be buying it. It's not the type of music I usually listen to.
I think a lot of the stuff that the recording industry is scared about is that it will be harder for them to pawn off these "throwaway CDs" where they have the title made-for-radio track, and the rest of the CD is shit. Basically what's going to happen is the bands who actually give a damn what they put out are going to get the sales, and crappy manufactured bands aren't going to get squat. Unfortunately for the RIAA, that means that they are going to have to work harder on giving their "artists" new "work."
... when they ask why I am eating all the bulk foods, I say "this is just sampling, I buy more bulk food than the average person, so you should ignore this theft."
I'm not saying that this is definitely untrue, but it is important to understand that this is a survey that relies on what people say they do, not what they actually did. Those two different things can be very different.
It is also dangerous to imply causation. Even if you prove that Napster users buy more music, you can't say that Napster causes people to buy more music. Just as likely is that those people attracted to Napster are music enthusiasts who buy lots of music.
(Most of this should be obvious, but it ought to be said.)
Music industry stats are just as shaky. To imply that record sale declines close to universities are due to Napster ignores all sorts of alternate possibilities, such as changing musical tastes, increasing purchase of music from online sources, etc.
The cake is a pie
Along the same lines, there are little stations in Wal-Mart stores that lets you scan the bar code of a CD or video and then you can listen to tracks off the cd or watch scenes from the video... very cool.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Sometimes I get really bored (don't we all) and I type some random word into my Gnapster client and listen to whatever comes up... this has turned me on to some really rad music! I now own both Outback albums and both Dr. Didg albums I even bought a didgeridoo cause I liked the sound so much... before napster I had 3 CD's (tool, clutch and limp bizkit) now I have about 20 and they cover a WIDE range of music... from Aboriginal Didgeridoo music to Static-X...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Uh, then MS must be one of the biggest thieves there is then right?
"potential profits" and/or "future revenues" are just corporate lawyer babble for "we have more expensive lawyers than you" when in a court room. You can't steal what doesn't exist yet. There's no guarentee that some other aspect of the market won't change (that doesn't lend well to suing) that will cause the "loss" of the "future profits". Like, say, a massive natural disaster destroys the companies base of operations. When the law considers money not yet recieved to be something that can be lost or stolen, it allows wealthy entities to prevent any changes that might make for a more balanced playing field. (i.e. a competitor makes a superior product "stealing our revenues"; laws are changed to weaken a monopolies power to preserve its monopoly "cutting into our future profits")
Intolerant people should be shot.
Your analogy is much more silly. The entire value of currency lies in the prohibition against copying it --- so copying it actually does in some sense `destroy' the original.
As this article makes clear, music (or software, whatever) is a much more ambiguous case.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
If you work in a profession where you design and sell things, how do you feel about a future where it's fine for anyone to take one of the things you've designed, copy it in a very precise way, as many times as they want and give these copies away to people who can do the same, without paying you anything? Napster might take us there. If you want that future, that's your decision. I don't.
--
...or am I missing something?
http://www.r3mix.net/
The LAME encoder drastically increases the quality of MP3s, at the cost of some disk space (considerable disk space, if you go all out).
Artifacts are nearly undetectable in my LAME-encoded MP3s.
To add my 2 cents to the main discussion: I've bought a good number more CDs since I started listening to MP3s I downloaded from other people.
Last month I bought 5 in one day -- all of them were purchases inspired by listening to MP3s from other people.
Regards,
Regards,
-scott
whether or not their reasons for not wanting to give it away are valid, it's still their choice, as it should be.
Napster is nice and all, but to say "this doesn't hurt them as much as they are claiming it hurts them" just seems irrelavlent.
________
If Napster users buy much less music than they would have otherwise, then it would be in the industry's best economic interest to stop Napster at all costs.
No, actually it wouldn't. If they're fighting Napster in order to make more money, then they shouldn't stop it "at all costs." If the costs of stopping Napster are greater than the losses incurred due to Napster, then it's not in the industry's best economic interest.
People use these stupid cliches and don't even think about what they're saying.
nt
Duh. Of course people who use Napster are the enthusiasts. Of course they buy more music. This is a pointless report - because - the relevant question is: "Are Napster users buying more music NOW than they did before they had Napster?" The answer to that question would make a more relevant social statement.
- In a knowledge based industry your main asset will always be people -
Do you never listen to the radio?
Heres a tip: Not every CD found in a typical record store can also be found playing currently on the radio dial.
There are plenty of genres where you'll buy first and discover your mistake later -- for example I have a number of recordings of Mozart's "Great" Mass in Cm by different performers. Some were worth it, some were not.
Lets look a little bit beyond the top-40, please..
this is great i find a lot of music online... i have purchased all of the CDs i like and removed the mp3s that i did not like... last year was the biggest for music sales... the riaa are heavy crack users me thinks... not everone is a crook.. oh well to hell with them...
I have a 10 dollar bill. Should you or should you not be allowed to make a copy of it?
You should be allowed to make a copy of it, you should not be able to pass the copy off as an official ten dollar bill. Similarly, you may also make a cologne which looks and smells like (insert expensive cologne here) and sell it under a unique name, but if you pass it off as (insert same name of expensive cologne here) you are breaking the law. The same applies to generic clothes, they can copy the appearance of an expensive brand, but they can't claim to be made by the company which makes the expensive brand.
This strikes me as a response where you didn't even think about what he said before trying to mock it.
You actually purchased CDs having no idea what was on them?! Do you never listen to the radio? Did you actually look at a prospective purchase and say, "Gee, I've never heard any of these titles, but I'm gonna buy it anyways."
I can't say specifically what he did, but I know I personally bought a CD or two based on a good single only to find out the rest of the album was crap. Also, what do you do about good CDs that don't make it onto the radio? You just ignore them? I think that makes you the moron, not him.
Anybody who buys a DVD after seeing only a movie trailer is a moron. Like somebody who buys a car because the picture on the billboard looked so cool.
That's his point! He's saying it's stupid to buy an album without having heard it all first. Buying an album based on a good single is like buying a movie based on a good preview.
and i say Napster is an absolute BOON to us. the only musicians who stand to lose from Napster are those upper .0001% that are already way too rich to be considered musicians anymore anyway. then again, i'm voting for Nader in this election only because Jello Biafra bowed out, so don't take MY opinion too seriously.
i could live a little longer in this prison
I have spent a good deal of time on this and came to this conclusion.
I look at Napster as a valuable tool to push music to everybody... I mean everybody!!!
Some may argue radio does this. Let us be honest, does radio play good or even great music? No!
I believe that the masses (people who may not appreciate good music or not big music lovers) may be looking for more. Pop music does not fulfill nor is it satisfying.
Today's music is so horrible (maybe its because I am getting older). People's curiosity will have Napster download music greats and then you have to turn around and buy the CD.
I don't think people are downloading Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears (except the teeny boppers who have no part time jobs) and going out to buying their music. I think that people are downloading Dire Straits, Jimi Hendrix, Rush, Sade and others and going out to buy their CD's.
The Music Industry is scared that they will lose money on there new talent that they have pushed on the masses. People are going to download the new CD from [enter young blonde chick with no talent] or [young male quintet with no talent], realize that their new album is crap and buy something else.
Before Napster, I was a huge fan of Hip-Hop, R&B and Jazz with 1000 CD's and 600 LP's (countless singles). Since Napster, I have triple my collection with blues, rock and classical.
Thanks Napster!
ChozSun [e-mail]
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
I consider myself a music enthusiast. My MP3 collection is over 30 gigs and I buy CD's regularly.
But the CD's I buy tend to be from smaller labels and I purchase them from smaller shops. Being able to download the popular music from the bigger labels for free allows me to spend my money on rarer stuff, which I'm sure isn't going to make the Sony or Arista bigwigs any happier.
Ok kids, if you say you've bought more, you can still use Napster. Else, the RIAA will use this study to shut down Napster. Now, what is your answer?
My CD buying patterns have always been low, because it takes a lot to convince me. MP3s taken over what I used to tape off of the radio, or bootleg from a friend.
-bugg
...for the free publicity.
;)
All this music is promoting the bands, right? More sales? Lots of media attention?
And heck, the RIAA has enough money to go around. Now *there's* a business model I could live with!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Not that I personally can usually tell the difference (I'm not too good in the ears) but have you tried mp3s at 160 or higher? Most of my MP3 collecting friends refuse anything lower than 160.
You've also hit the nail on the head. While the stealing is a valid concern it's the lack of control that RIAA has over who the consumer sees and hears that they are probably most worried about. Being able to basically get away with collusion for decades is finally going to end and they're going to fight it to the bitter end.
The most annoying thing about this entire ordeal is that neither side is innocent of wrongdoing so it's hard to take a moral high road. A literal den of thieves.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
Actually Lars and Metallica sanction tape bootlegging. They always have. Metallica supports recording their concerts and bootlegging that, too. The reason is that Metallica would never be as big as they are today without bootlegging. That is how the band was initially promoted, and their support of the practice won brownie points with fans.
Lars even admitted this and the fact that HE PERSONALLY bootlegs music even now, in his slashdot interview.
Lars had two arguments against Napster. One was that he felt Metallica should be in control of their music distribution. They sanctioned bootlegging but not napster, therefore napster should stop in deferrence to metallica.
The other points he made were based on quality and scope. Mp3's do not deteriorate when copied, and can be encoded well enough to be virtually indistinguishable from Cd except to the most rabid audiophile. (They usually arent encoded this well, though.) As for scope, he points out that the average metallica fan does not have millions of friends he can meet every day, whereas on the net millions of people can download and swap mp3's.
Lars admitted that bootlegging supports sales. To me the only point he made at all, the only part of his argument that is not full of crap, was the control issue. It is Metallica's music; if they want to be assholes and dicks about it, they can, basically, even if they are wrong.
This is demonstrated by websites and products that give the downloaders the ability to interact with artists (mp3.com). Not only can you directly view information about an artist while you are downloading and listening to their music but very often the artist is also compensated.
Napster does NOT and does not plan to ever conpensate artists nor give them the ability to reach out and touch them.
This is why napster simply facilitates piracy. Nothing more nothing less.
Oh and if you bought some many albums that sucked why didn't you take them back. Not only does just about every record store have a listening kiosk and will put the cd that you are looking to purchase in there but they do take returns. I have done both many times.
Assuming Napster loses or sells out, what's the next best thing and when will it come?
VORBIS rules!
A year or 2 ago, 50% of the cds I bought sucked and I had no way to find out until after i bought it; like buying a DVD only because of the trailer of the movie.
You are an incompetent consumer. I own over 1,000 CD's, and over 90% I bought without hearing a single note before the purchase. About 80% of my collection is absolutely rivetting, and less than 1% is "bad".
A hint for the clueless: read review books and music magazines, and buy primarily from independents with a good reputation. I subscribe to over a dozen music magazines, buy review books regularly, and am loyal to the best independent labels.
[sarcasm]
Oh, joy, this will stop all the fighting!
Yes, now the big labels and big bands will see that Napster users are merely music ENTHUSIASTS, no pirates! They will embrace Napster, and all other like services, showering them with high-quality tracks, demos, and even previews!
And Metallica will realize its erronous ways, and beg forgiveness from all of its Napster fans. In fact, being so moved by the indesputable research that Napster HELPS sales, Metallica will become the single biggest promoter and sponsor of Napster, and release all of their music online for the first time in History!
[/sarcasm]
Unfortunately, record execs can't read Jupiter's report, having their heads so far up their asses.
The games are *still* afoot...
Mr. Ska
--In an interview earlier this month, RIAA chief executive Hilary Rosen told CNET News.com that the industry stands by the Soundscan report.
Oohh... they're standing by the one statistic that represents what they want people to think! Where would we be if scientists tried to prove things with doctored data, instead of allowing the surprising facts come in (you know, like the first time we found out the moon wasn't made of cheese)
You know, this gets me all riled up. I think if someone came to me and told me I had to get rid of my 2,200 mp3 albums to save the artists, I would (except for that really really hard working metallica band...)
But there's no way I'd even bother to piss in a record executive's mouth to save his life from dying of thirst.
--| the musician's association - hashing out solutions |-----
.mp3, whatever...
t einer-Social.html
in a nutshell:
- the physical distributors and merchandisers pay into the
musician's pool that pays and feeds the musicians.
- the musicians pool distributes it equitably among its active
producers.
- from the pool comes more new music. which is given away for
free. unlimited digital copies for everyone - AIFF,
never again a dime paid for anything that's just DATA.
- the distributors get fresh music, and sell and package more STUFF.
- the distributors pay back a percentage of sales back into the pool.
- so it comes back around and feeds itelf in a positive fashion.
>> that's the most important part.
so all the software is free - before we had radio and tapes,
now we have unlimited copying of files over the web - you get
mindshare from it. then people still buy your stuff. i've got
a copy of lewis carol by download - i bought the book too.
you can download red-hat for free, but its a best seller at
chapters.
the thing is - if you press a record or burn a CD and put it on
sale, it is something physical, and a percentage goes back, but
the artist is not paid direct - it goes to the musician's pool.
perhaps one way of doing it would be then to dole out the shares
each month by percentage of overall free downloads from a server
(e.g. napster) that offers them up for free. may have to weigh
the downloads - this has to be intelligently moderated. this
needs some more thought behind it - so that it works equitably
for those involved. that's the job of the association.
the economic principles i have grasped in only rudimentary form.
i'm afraid i really don't do it justice. however, there is a
viable alternative to the capitalism-communism dichotomy that
exists here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/S
extra ideas:
- certified teachers
- certified distributors
- classes of members:
- novices
- students
- apprenticeships
- professional
On the other hand, the declines might coincide with colleges and schools putting ethernet in their dorms, and students increasingly coming to school with computers. $0.02.
Folk/Bluegrass is one of my two or three favorite genres, and, unfortunately, not extremely well documented. It is relatively difficult to find out what the best folk music is being produced.
Firstly, I will say that the situation for folk is much more bleak on Napster than in record stores. Napster has none of my favorite folk artists (I've searched for them), which are readily available in the largest record stores (Carrie Newcomer, Lucy Kaplansky, Iris DeMent, Nanci Griffith, Doyle Lawson, Blue Highway, James King, John prine, Julie Miller, etc.) MP3.com has lots of folk music, but all unknown artists or washed out artists, and you have to go through HOURS of cruft to find songs on par with the best folk artists who record CD's, or even songs which don't put you to sleep.
Now, as to finding the best folk music, I suggest two strategies. First, read some of the folk/bluegrass/alt.country magazines such as Bluegrass Unlimited, No Depression, Folk Roots, and the like. These have extensive reviews, which will point you to the best music. Second, with a lot of this music you can look at the label for an idea of the sound and quality. Labels such as Sugarhill, Compasss, Rounder, Philo, and Hightone produce consistently awesome quality folk music. Thirdly, actually, most of those labels put out low cost samplers. I have actually gotten into many a new artist this way (Rounder has a bunch of samplers!)
I think that folk music is much more healthy on record than on the net, and I do not believe it can be healthy on the net since the barrier to entry is so low, that anybody with a guitar and a voice can record folk music and put it on the web, even if they aren't very talented, but the current record system assures that only the cream of the crop get recorded.
Folk is overall, moderately well documented. The best documented genre, by far, is classical. The worst is current jazz (but old jazz is well documented). It is almost impossible to find out what the best current jazz records are. The only good magazine I know of is Cadence, but they review so many records, and they don't rate them so it is difficult to tell what the best records are each month, and it's not clear what the most pretisgious independent labels are.
Fact of the matter is that some cds are not worth buying merely because it was one or two songs you enjoy. This should, if anything, encourage artists to make albums that don't suck. If there are enough songs on the album to make the nvestment worthwhile, I'd almost always prefer the cd over the mp3s. Perhaps if singles were more accessible than they are, I'd buy singles over mp3s, too.
Would you buy a house that had only one room without flourescent green paint and a notice that said you were unable to change the paint color?
- Justin
This doesn't make what they are doing any more legal.
Nor does it make it any less legal. Napster isn't actually giving out any copyrighted music. You may say it's just a technicality, but law is all about technicality, and I don't think people like Metallica understand this one. When I first heard Lars Ulrich speak about suing Napster, it sounded like he actually believed Napster went out and got Metallica's music with the intent of distributing it for free.
Napster isn't giving out copyrighted music anymore than AOL is. It's just the method of connection being used by pirates. I suspect several Napster users are connected to the Internet through AOL, so why don't you sue them? They're facilitating the copyright violation just like Napster is. Them and all other ISPs. And Computer manufacturers.
one of the advantages/power of MP3 and other digital media is previewing, thus helping you
make better choices.
Personally, i have bought more CDs because i have
tried them before. I have even explored other
genres that I previously couldnt afford.
Now, everytime i buy a CD, its something
i really want because i already tasted; like
buying a DVD of your favorite movie.
A year or 2 ago, 50% of the cds I bought sucked and
I had no way to find out until after i bought it;
like buying a DVD only because of the trailer
of the movie.
So, mp3 have brought me:
1. wiser choices
2. less deceptions
3. enjoyed other music otherwise i wouldnt have
4. more CDs
This paid my last vacation, it mi
You aren't paying attention.
What he's saying is that the record companies aren't actually making any less money, they're just making it through online retailers instead of physical ones, so why are they upset?
I like to collect a lot of rare music, especially old 45 rpm records, import cds, etc. One thing I like about napster, is I can find and listen to rare old songs very easily. This greatly influences what I'll buy next time I look for rare recordings. None of the large record companies have a way to quickly download older, rarer recordings. They may only have a small selection of their catalog available to listen to for free, or for sale. That's not good enough. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee if I could listen to some of their older catalog of music, but that's not the case for now. For me, the only option is napster.
Albums like Pet Sounds or Sgt. Pepper, Led Zep IV or Who's Next.
The idea of an album as a solid 50 minutes of music has been lost in the quagmire of Britney Spears, 'NSync and the dozens (nay, hundreds) of bands who
Produce entire albums consisting of one song changed ever so slightly (Changing lyrics like "I want you back baby" to "Baby, I want you back" doesn't make two different songs, Boy Bands); or
Produce a one-hit wonder that urges people to buy their worthless album that contains said one-hit wonder and 50 minutes of garbage. The music is totally disposable. If it was never released, it wouldn't have mattered because it influences no one and doesn't add anything to our culture, whereas the real albums (Are You Experienced?, Highway 61 Revisited, etc.) affect people, change music and add something. Those were real albums, not 50 minutes of fluff, and they weren't propelled by a one-hit wonder.
These days, the album isn't worth the $17 the record companies say it is. Why pay for the entire album when there's just one good song on it? Why release albums these days at all? Why not just release the single and forget about the rest of the tracks?
Or at least let us pick and choose our tracks so we can weed out the fluff and just concentrate on those one-hit wonders. Let me download a song for $1 or whatever so I don't have to shell out $17 for the entire useless album.
Perhaps slightly off-topic, but I needed to vent.
J
Because the poster is right in the particulars and clueless in the import: It is "just semantics", but that doesn't imply it is unimportant. This whole struggle is not about right v. wrong, or even permissible v. illegal. It's about perception. If the Copyright Cartel can convince the average citizen that copyright infringement is stealing -- or better, somehow it's "piracy" -- then they get to take advantage of a built-in connotation, immediately making people thinkg "Oooh, stealing is wrong. So this must be wrong."
"Infringement" does not have that same embedded meaning, so it doesn't rouse the emotions. Of course -- make no mistake here -- the RIAA and the MPAA most certainly do not want to have this settled by reason. The chances are far too good that, considered reasonably, their arguments are untenable. No, the Copyright Cartel want to triumph via the emotions. After all, manipulating emotions is the core of their business anyway. So they attempt to frame the debate in a way to push the buttons of the uninformed.
Sadly, too many seem willing to cede choice of the emotional/intellectual terrain to the enemy... and as any good general will tell you, that spells defeat. Pay attention to Cosmo (from Sneakers ), if you really want to understand this conflict:
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
People still like to have something tangible. I personally own many CDs in addition to my growing MP3 collection. The mere presence of a new distribution medium does not negate the benefits of older, more established ones. Just because I could scour Napster and download an album doesn't mean that I won't spend $12 for a CD. I agree that $19 for a disc is a bit much to ask (I've worked at a CD factory, and I know how rediculously little the chunks of plasic cost to make), but I don't mind shelling out a couple bucks for a high-quality, very portable (in the physical sense: I can just grab a CD and bring it with me), and pretty durable collection of music. Also being a radio DJ, I don't as of yet have the ability to play MP3s on-air, so having a CD allows me to play a song I like over the air, or in my computer, or in my discman, or in a car, or ... any number of other places where the now-ubiquitous CD-player has found a home. I can also personally attest to this trend as I've bought a disc as the result of hearing a song from an MP3 I'd downloaded (with the band's permission from their own site). All in all, record companies are making more money now than ever before. They need to stop whining, but then again, RIAA is a professional whining board (it's in their charter, as far as I can tell).
09
to get more stupider
As the subject says, I was at a record store last night. A couple thousand CDs, mostly folk and bluegrass. I looked at many, but in the end didn't buy one. I've bought bad folk records, and I've bought good ones. I love folk but the catagorie is large enough that some of it bores me. I wanted to buy anouther CD, but not knowing any of the artists I was not willing to take a chance on any.
There needs to be some way to sample music before I buy it.
Uh, if you check out the links, they go to amazon.com, buy.com, varsitybooks.com, and cdnow.com.
Now, think about reasons for book/computer stores near college campuses doing poorly (HINT: amazon.com, buy.com, and varsitybooks.com).
Now, what does cdnow.com sell? *cough* CD's *cough*
So again I pose a question: do you need to be hit with the clue-by-four any harder?
Read other posts on that subject. I like the theory that it's non-Top-40 sales that they don't like - esp. because a good portion of what many people who don't listen to Top-40 music DO listen to is non-major-label stuff. (Mostly because >90% of what's on the Top-40 is crap.)
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
>10 dollar bill. Should you or should you not
>be allowed to make a copy of it?
It *IS*, in fact, perfectly legal to copy US currency. You see it all the time in novelty stores... Sometimes it is play money for kids. Some times it is turned into notepads. Some artists have sold HAND PAINTED (and *VERY* real looking) reproductions as art.
Fair use, apparantly, applies, at least in principle, even to currency.
What it is *NOT* legal to do is attempt to pass that $10 as genuine currency. To that end, there are laws governing the accuracy of the reproduction. I forget the exact details, but they generally run along the lines of:
Photocopies must be blown up X% bigger
or they must be shrunk Y% smaller
or they must be copied onto a different color paper.
Ever noticed that the "funny money" sold for kids to play with is always reproduced bigger or smaller than the real deal? That's why.
>(Assuming that you have access to the technology
>to make an undetectable duplicate)
Which is where *your* analogy REALLY breaks down.
I defy you to find me ANY set of MP3 tools that will: rip a red book track to AIFF (that's WAV for you windoze users), compress it to MP3, expand it back to AIFF, and then be able to pass a diff with the previously ripped AIFF file, to say nothing about the original red book track.
I don't think you'll find one. To be fair, you don't have to use a single toolset. Choose the BEST ripper, the BEST compresser, and the BEST expander you can find.
It ain't gonna happen. Because as anyone who ever bothered to read the MP3 spec knows, it is a (very) lossy compression scheme. The algorythm discards data (all too often the wrong data) in favor of a smaller file size.
(if you want an example of non-lossy compression, go have a look at etree)
And far from being detectable only via diff, it's easily detectable with the good ol' eardrum version 1.0. If you play MP3s on a real stereo with good speakers (the $2 headphones on your discman or rio don't count. Neither do the $100 el cheepo POS speakers on your computer), you *DO* notice an extreme degredation of quality compared to a red book CD. And the same, of course, applies to CDR's burned from expanded MP3s.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
I think more than anything this validates the Senatorial comments made in this article concerning the fact that the music industry has little grounds to go after the online trading of MP3s if they are not going to take advantage of the medium themselves. The labels could argue that it would not be economically feasible to pursue the online medium as a method of distributing legitimate music, but not after the results of a survey like this. No doubt they have their own statistics that swing the other way, but it's nice to see something ressembling hard facts that show that the SOLE reason the recording industry is going after online music distribution is FEAR OF CHANGE! These results show that it's definitely NOT about money...
Earlier research, released by Soundscan in May, showed declining CD sales at stores near universities
In other news, computer stores and books stores next to college campuses are showing the lowest sales rates in years.
I wonder why? Could there perhaps be a connection?
Napster still reminds me of the tape trading scenes around school. You get a half assed, poorly recorded, mislabeled tape of music thats just enough to get you interested in buying the real deal.
I just downloaded some unreleased tracks off a Who album I've had forever(Live at Leeds, of course), and it has rekindled my interest in buying the remastered CDs of my older Who recordings I have collected. There ya go.
see, before i'd know a song was by a certain artist, say the left handed midget lesbian eskimo albino song by the dead milkmen. i don't remembe the name of the song and i don't remember what album it was on.. previously i'd have to go buy every dead milkmen cd, or buy them randomly (or god forbid, ask the guy who works at the store), but now, i can figure it out on napster, then just buy that one cd!
actually that's mainly a joke,..
napster doesn't affect my cd buying habits at all, i don't play mp3s in my car, and i don't listen to cds on my computer
but the RIAA doesn't care. they want control over how all the music is distributed. period.
the only way you might be able to make them care is to show that they will LOSE a lot of sales if Napster goes away. there really is no way to prove that (because it almost certainly isn't true.)
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
This doesn't make what they are doing any more legal. However, it is certainly a result that should get the RIAA to look more carefully at whats going on. If the RIAA is smart(pretty low hopes for that though) they will start there own study to determine why, and start sending out their own Mp3s in a manner which emphasizes what makes Napster users buy more music. Perhaps record companies can release samplers of all their groups on CD? Ask all their artists to select one or two tracks that they believe epitomize the heart of their music, Mp3 them, and send it out on CD for a low price. Or put them up on the web, with links to allow online ordering. Perhaps a for pay Mp3 subscription where you automatically get certain Mp3s emailed to you regularly? Or a free email containing an Mp3 from a groups new album, either a full track or samples of multiple tracks. These tactics will help RIAA turn Mp3 to their side, rather than just pissing off Mp3 users.
it's moot whether napster goes away or not, people have the tools to make mp3s now, they will continue to do so. there really is no easy way for them to stop the free distribution of music over the net.
i personally don't care if there is a centralized company like napster behind it or not, i'd almost prefer there wasn't.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Statistics say whatever you want them to say. And although I'm all for music on the internet, the reality is that we slashdot readers, morally superior and good looking, are the minority. Sure, we sample songs on Napster and then buy the CD's.
However, for every one of us, there's 20 poor college kids or script kiddies who are rapidly filling their brand new 80 GB hard drives with every MP3 they can find. I'm playing devil's advocate here; I'm certainly not siding with the RIAA, but let's be honest with ourselves.
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
but liars figure. According to the San Jose Mercury, the RIAA study relied on sales data from periods PRIOR TO the wide distribution of Napster. Thus the RIAA study reflects the shift in sales from retail stores to online sellers (the sales figures from which were excluded from the RIAA study.) Given this, the Jupiter study results are entirely consistent.
My question is: Who does the RIAA think it protecting ? brick-and-mortar retailers ? mom and pop retailers ?
--
People are saying that just because Napster users buy more music doesn't imply causation. This is true, however... The study didn't just measure the current level of spending; it measured an increase in spending since starting to use Napster. At the Jupiter Communications website, you can see that Napsters users have increased their spending more than other online music fans. This is a very important distinction, because it does imply causation.
In addition, I must say that I personally use Napster, and I certainly buy more music than I did before. I'm exposed to more groups that I wouldnt' have heard of, and I'm much more likely to hear a song or two and like it, then go out and buy the album. I have no CD burner at home, and I'd like to be able to listen to the music on my discman and in my car, not just when I'm in the same room as my computer; and anyway, it's much easier to use for sampling and exploring than it would be if I was trying to download entire albums. And I'm willing to bet that sales near colleges have gone down because of CDNow and other such services that are cheaper and easier to get good music from than most music stores that take advantage of college towns.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
What I think napster is going to hurt most is
going to be the "one hit wonder" music industy.
This would include most movie sound tracks. If
a band puts out an album on CD that has 12-18
good tracks of music that I want to listen to
then I would purchase it. If a band puts out
an album with one song that is good and the rest
is complete crap I would much rather download that
song off of napster and never bother to get the
entire album. Napster is going to promote good
music as apose to quick buck money maker single
hit albums and movie sound tracks.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
If I listen to alot of music then I would most likely want to buy it in different formats so I can listen to it anywhere I can.
IMHO Napster is very similar to Warez : You get your heart set on getting a particular program and you head out to the local #warez-dcc channel and start looking for FTP sites, DCC servers, etc. After many hours of missing files, corrupt archives, FTP servers that mysteriously shutdown just as you're finishing a file, you run to the local EB and buy it because you're so pissed and you now just want to get the bloody software. I think it is prudent and very wise for the software companies to put up their own `warez' servers that serve up crap, and I have a good feeling that they do : What else could explain 20 ZIPs inside 17 RAR's inside a ZIP that's packed into a PAK that's inside a ARJ, etc. etc. etc., and when you finally get to the milky center you discover a corrupt file.
Napster is pretty much the same. It is close to useless now even bothering with Napster because the noise ratio is EXTREMELY high and the bogus song ratio is increasing dramatically. If I was the music industry I would do my best to fill Napster full of noise and garbage, and I'll bet that's exactly what they do.
How is downloading MP3s any different than listening to CDs in those sample booths they have at the mall?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
This matters hugely. Did Napster pay for the research to be done? Did Jupiter do it out of the kindess of their hearts? (prolly not)? Did they do it to get headlines during their merger with media metrix? (maybe).
I'm not saying the research is invalid--in fact I agree with it--but when push comes to shove defending napster against RIAA and the like, these questions will come up and we should have the answers. preliminary browsing at Jupiter's site didn't reveal anything...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
While surveys like this are a nice way to laugh at the RIAA, think about the long-term implications. 10 years from now, can you honestly say that MP3-type files [mediumless, unencrypted, digital audio, whatever the format may be] will encourage CD sales?? Or whatever type sales there are in 2010? The RIAA et al are not going after this for their immediate defense; this is obviously not a threat in the next 1 or 2 years.
But I think they can see where this is headed, and that's what worries them.
Some people will hear a song on the radio, like it, and look for it. If they like the song, but aren't willing to shell out 16+ bucks, they still have he option of buying that particular song without putting a hole in their wallet to do it. I know for a fact that this sort of thing happens because
a.) I paid 16+ for a Crash Test Dummies album. (what a mistake that was)
b.) Retailers still stock singles.
Therefore there must be a market for it. Retailers are in the business of making money and usually won't do something that wastes the greenbacks. Napster (and don't confuse me with someone who supports the recording industry in this case) is putting a hole in that market.
then you start to explore.
and, guess what? a lot of those mp3's got hisses, pops, get cutoff at the end, are poorly ordered, sometimes it can be a real chore to get the whole album (always missing a track and whatnot). know what this means? you get a great preview. a really great preview. you hear most of the album. and if it stands out... you (OMG!) buy the cd!!
now, don't get me wrong. you download a hell of a lot more than you buy. but you don't have to buy cd's only to find that there's only one good track anymore.
so after you buy it, whaddya do? first thing: rip it. rip it properly: no hisses, no cutoffs, numbered tracks, etc. and burn it so you can listen to it in your car (on your mp3 cd player -- you have one, right?), at work (on your computer -- you are a geek, right?), or at home (on your computer through your badass sound system).
it's truly a beautiful thing. and if i didn't buy your music, the reason is simple: i didn't like it. at least i found out before i spent anything.
"Jupiter Report Says Napster Users Buy MORE Music"
"More" is a comparative. Napster users buy more music than who or what? The answer makes a big difference.
If, for instance, the answer was "...than they would have if they hadn't used Napster" then we have good argument to bring to the record companies. (Of course, the record companies could say "sure, for now--but what about when EVERYBODY uses Napster?").
But if the answer was "...than people who don't use Napster" it proves nothing. Maybe Napster-usage and album-purchase volume are both functions of some common cause (like, enjoying listening to music). Maybe these people's purchase volume has even DECREASED since the introduction of Napster, but is still "more" than non-Napster users.
Personally, this poll does nothing for me. The point to me is not "how can I maximize the label (or even artist) profit". The issue to me is "do I really own the things I supposedly own", meaning "can I make copies of the data I 'own'".
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I'm not sure this is right, and I'm pretty damn sure it wouldn't hold up in court, but think about this:
According to the "Infinite Monkey Theorem," creating at random will, given an infinite amount of time, produce every possible thing, i.e., you could write a program that randomly fills a file with characters, to a certain length, and eventually you would have a randomly generated copy of "Enter Sandman" for example. Therefore, by running the program, <b>you</b> have created something which is, coincidentally, the same as something someone else created. So, if you manage to create by mere whimsy what took them very nearly a full hour to write, isn't your copy your own, to sell or give away as you choose?
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
This may be a little off topic but...Musicians are famous because of us, the public. If they want to be a sellout and sell a million copies then they must serve us. We made them were they are today. The compact disk industry has been ripping us consumers off for years. They make huge profits off of cheap media. So if music fans are fed up with the CD industry and we want to change it(via Napster), the top selling musicians(our servants) should obey our wishes and stop whining and figure out a new way to capitalize on this new industry. We put them were they are, after all. If they want to stay there they should at least follow some of our most important wishes! The role of a famous musician is to entertain us. That is all. If you are a musician and don't agree with this, more power to you. I find it ridiculous that lousy musicians are making millions of dollars while, talented, original, true musicians are struggling. Napster will give these guys more exposure than they ever had before though.
I've tried to decide which CD I should buy from a particular band, listened to some songs using Napster, and decided to buy all of their CDs.
Napster in my case is like shareware. It's an insurance policy that ensures that I will like what I buy. If I don't like a performer's work, I delete it and don't put it on my shopping list.
A lot of people (including Hillary Rosen) are saying things to the effect that just because online MP3 distribution doesn't hurt CD sales doesn't make it right. Well, they're missing the point.
The point, of course, is that copyright is (or at least should be, depending on what country you are) a social contract. The public gives up their freedom to copy "owned" works in exchange for the assurance that, if they buy it instead, the people who make it will be able to continue producing more of it. This concept evidently depends on the idea that treating your work as material property - i.e., jealously protecting it from unauthorised copying - is the only way to make money from intellectual goods.
Well, this report is proof to the contrary. If the public is no longer willing to keep up with the current copyright system, and the producers can still make enough money without it, then there's really no reason to continue with the current system: it's in the best interests of everyone to just come up with a new agreement.
Of course, to the record companies (as for all middlemen), the issue isn't really money; they have enough of that already. It's about power. For a long time they've had a virtually unbeatable monopoly on recorded music, and now they're losing it. That's unacceptable. So you can fully expect that, to the detriment of everyone, they'll keep fighting to retain the current system where they alone dictate the rules.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I use programs like Napster and Gnutella heavily to aquire Mp3s of bands that I either like (as in I own some of their other work) or that I have heard good things about. This has acutally led me to buy more albums overall, despite me having a burner. Why? Because I like bands with intense levels of bass guitar, such as Rancid and NoMeansNo. With Mp3s (IMHO), you just can't even approach the quality of CD music, even on high-bitrate Mp3s, but you get an idea of how good the song is. There is a world of difference between listening to "Roots Radicals" on CD (awesome) as opposed to Mp3 (slightly tinny).
That, and I like the cover art, and I like supporting good bands.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
My son had about half of the Perfect Circle CD on mp3 before it was released. We bought a copy the day it was released. Then he completed his mp3 collection.
Would Dynamite Hack be played on a local station if not for mp3s????? Probably not.
Thanks
It's getting sort of tiring, in a fatigue sort of way.
Intellectual property, distribution, ownership, and control issues are getting in the way of people getting music and movies the way they want them, which means people are breaking laws and getting in trouble.
I understand that the market doesn't have to supply anything it doesn't want to. It's the right of the music people, the movie people, the DVD people, to *not* make money by refusing to release stuff online, or refusing to make their products accessible... Actually, correct that. Won't they get under fire from their shareholders by acting in such a way as to limit their own growth and success? But still, it's within their rights to not pursue an option if they don't believe in it.
Okay so I'm rambling. But I don't think I'm the only tired? I'm interested in the outcome, but it seems such a pain, and I can't fire up the enthusiam to actually care, today. Do we need a leader/martyr? Is that how human mentality works? Do we need someone to drive us, to scream for us, to die for us, so we can get up and do something? Do we need an RMS to forge ahead into intellectual property?
Of course, I see nothing wrong with buying music, movies, etc. Pay for the distribution, the packaging, the convenience, whatever. I buy DVDs and CDs because they work for me. I would love it if the price dropped, because the price limits me to how many I can buy, and really, the industry makes the same money if I buy 1 for 20$ or 4 for 5$. I would love it if there were broadband access to samples, to music, to movies, to videos...
Perhaps we do need government, Senator Hatch, Congress, etc to step in, if only because, ostensibly, they are the voice and the power of the people, first and foremost, but have the clout and size to bully the corporations.
Bye!
GPL Deconstructed
Hm sorry about the other post I hit enter by mistake :P
"I don't think it matters at all whether we've been economically hurt,"
Oh nice about face there. "Napster is hurting record sales of our artists!" "No, wait, that doesn't matter, its the idea that's wrong!" Haha.
"And if you have a copyright asset, that is the principle of copyright--that you get to control and own your own work, and other people don't get to profit from it without your permission."
Who exactly is profiting from trading music over Napster? Nobody pays for the songs the download, nobody gets paid for the songs they post. There isn't even ads to view on the Napster client, so increased user base can't generate more ad revenue. Where's the individual's profit??
"I live in a world of make-believe, with faeries and leprechauns and tiny little frogs with funny hats."
Hilary Rosen's quote:
.02
"I think that if I own my shirt and you borrow it, it doesn't matter whether or not I have another shirt. You're just not entitled to borrow it without my permission."
Hilary, you made my point for me. Are you the manufacturer of the shirt? If so, then you can sell it to me. Then I own it.
If you bought the shirt from the manufacturer and I don't have your permission to borrow it, fine. That's stealing.
If you bought the shirt from the manufacturer and you allow me to borrow it, then no harm, no foul. In this case, if you're the manufacturer, you don't have the right to control what someone does with it after you sell it.
Sorta slippery that she put that "without my permission" thing in there. More spin for the masses. She implies that Napster users don't have the permission of the sender to transfer a file. I thought the whole thing was that you made your files available exactly for that purpose, implicitly giving permission by that action. Oh well, the battle of words and publicity continues...
Just my
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
My music budget, both for CDs and live shows, has more than tripled since napster and scour.
There are reasons for this that I don't normally see come up in the legal debates:
1. The napster community, and especially the scour community, is totally inbred with incomplete files. User1 gets 75% of a song, which remains in his shared folder. Users2, 3, 4, 5 etc. all get 75% of the 75% file, and so forth. Diminishing returns.
2. MP3 sound quality, for the most part, SUCKS. I mean, I listen to them all the time because of their convenience, but if I get an mp3 of a band that I really like, I buy the CD to hear the cymbals, to hear the bass, etc.
To test this, get ahold of a CD and an mp3 of anything produced by Daniel Lanois, Robert Fripp or any Peter Gabriel album and listen to the differences... It's astronomical, really.
Music is audio, and quality is what matters. If it wasn't for gnutella and Scour i wouldn't have bought half of the cds or gone to half of the shows i've been to in the last 2 years.
That's not to say that I don't think the industry has the right to protect their stuff, I'm just saying theiy're going about it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.
Of course, the fact the everyone wants to be able to do the above doesn't seem to make an impact anymore... the democracy I learned about was based on the idea that The People could do any damnfool thing they wanted as long as most of them wanted to do it. That includes putting all the musicians on the planet out of business, which according to the RIAA is what The People would do if they weren't kept under their careful but benevolent control...
One of the main reasons why mp3 won't kill the CD is that with an mp3 you'd don't get the cover art and the liner notes that you typically get with the CD. Maybe if the record labels would stop to realize that what they are selling is not just the music, but the packaging and the print artwork as well. I mean sure I could download a whole album off of napster and burn it to CD, but its just not the same as having the artwork there in front of me.
Maybe the record labels should focus on adding more value into each CD and stop focusing on napster.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If MP3's sound the same as cd's to you, then you go with that. Personally I prefer the CD, because there are things lost in the compression. noticeably the high/low end of he sound spectrum. MP3's (even at 320 kbit) sound noticeably "flat" next to the same music played from a cd IMHO. in addition, I use napster, and I use other means of getting MP3's. if I like the song, I get the cd (so I can play it on my stereo, and on the bus in my discman). It's simply a matter of noticing that while they already have enough money, cd sales are what keep bands around. if I want a band to put out new stuff, I'll buy their CD's. if I don't like it enough to buy it, chances are it has an EXTREMELY short lifespan on my HDD. as for taking mp3's with you? well sure, when discman like mp3 players become common. but portable mp3 players seem to be a half-assed (maybe 1/4 assed :) solution. they don't hold enough, and you need a PC to reload more/different tunes to 'em. if I want to hear something different on my discman, I pop another cd into it. no muss, no fuss, more convenient. Just my $0.02
I may have 120 CDs at home but I'm sure not gonna buy the 50 or so MP3 encoded albums I have on my hard drive.
- Mer de Noms (A Perfect Circle)
- Tranceport (Paul Oakenfold)
- Orbital 2 (Orbital)
- This is Normal (Gus Gus)
And my selection of GOOD music has never been better. I've heard music that I wouldn't have heard otherwise, and I've been able to know if I like it before I buy it (even in stores where they have titles for sampling, they don't have very many, and it's mostly whatever's on the charts, doesn't mean it's good)._____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I spend my discretionary income on three things: books, music, and computing hardware. (Okay, I also spend on my old VW bus, but while random, that's not exactly discretionary.) MP3 is for me mainly a way of previewing music. It sounds okay on the cheap speakers at the office, and if affordable car MP3 players ever emerge from the vapor, I think MP3s will be great in the acoustically-challenged environment of my car. But pumped through my stereo at home, the flaws of a 128kbps MP3 are plainly evident, even after much tinkering with the EQ and various filters. To my ear, MP3s are "near CD quality" only for certain very liberal values of near. They sound like they're closer to "near worn LP quality" to me.
I've bought quite a few CDs recently after hearing MP3 versions. Some have been major label releases, others have been independent artists who've uploaded samples of their stuff to MP3.com. I anticipate more of the latter than the former as time goes by, since the major labels won't touch a lot of the stuff I like. And that is what I think the RIAA is really afraid of -- people being able to select from material outside of the hundred or so major label acts.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Nearly every person I know uses Napster to download music and then burn them onto CD-R's. These are the reasons why:
1. Cable connection
2. 4x CD writing
3. $0.80 CD-R's
4. Music
5. Friends that would pay for these particular CD's
Evaluate the cost comparison:
A. $12-$15 CD at the store
B. $0.80-$1.00 of CD-R + time + possible profit from selling the CD
Which would you choose, A or B?
Then there's people like FarmClub who help people get one or two songs downloaded, these bands are damn happy that people are downloading their songs and hearing what they're trying to get played, seeing as how they know only a small fraction of the people who are now buying their cds, would have ever heard of them had they not gotten in the public eye.
:)
Limp Bizkit, Eminem, and more artists actually condone downloading their music. Probably because they realize that if someone downloads a song, that's still recognition, one person downloads a song that they normally wouldn't buy, tells their friends about this new song, free advertising and they sell a few more CDs. Sometimes for bands that normally wouldn't sell anything at all. No real harm in that.
Sure, Artists may feel like they're being ripped off, less people buy singles, but it's just a new way of doing things. Some people would buy a single, like it, buy the whole CD. Well, they may not be getting the three bucks for the single anymore, but they're still getting the 12 for the cd. I think they need to stop crying about napster, and realize that in most cases, it's doing them a favor
It's true enough that many factors may be causing this increase, not just Napster. I could definitely see why this study would say one thing yet the music industry's would say another. Music enthusiasts who use Napster intelligently will often add a user to their 'hot list' and browse what's available, thus increasing exposure. These folks are not likely to purchase CDs from local stores, because most of what they want is mail-order or net-order only. Such a person buys more music, but it's not the music that the big boys care about.
I'll be honest and say *I* have not bought a CD lately, but that's due to lack of spare fundage in the first place, not a lack of desire.
--
These are *MY* opinions.
These are *MY* opinions.
They will not be *YOUR* opinions until the Orbital Mind Control Lasers are operati
Nice to see it finally got posted. I guess it took the American version before it became interesting.
You made some very good points but you give way too much credit to the members of Congress. Their thinking works more along the lines of: "millions of kids who'll become Republicans/Democrats for life v/s a few record industry people - guess which side I'm picking".
Mmmm.. Donuts
How is it that something that is infinitely, perfectly reproducible yet intangible has any value?
Of course I think software authors deserve to earn a living. I am not convinced, however, that if I duplicate an album I wasn't going to buy anyway, dollar bills magically disappear from some artist's wallet. It's one of those "if everyone does it..." scenarios, but not everyone does do it.
There really needs to be a midpoint where we can agree on what kind of value to place on IP. This is an issue that affects much more than just software and music, and a lot of people make their livings off of it.
--
Is this a legitimate question/argument, or are you just trolling for suckers?
I'd like to comment, but I'd rather not be bait.
I think these statistics held by the RIAA are less about both distribution control and about artist control, as Courtney Love explained quite well.
Tools like napster loosen the recording industry's control over which artists will eventually make it to the top, thus making the companies the most money. The recording industry knows that the more control they wield over the artists, the more revenue they can generate for themselves. The digital revolution may be what gives the individual artist the exposure that the recording companies once offered so exclusively.
I see, now, how this will obsolete not only the record companies' business model, but their business, as well.
she is getting upset because we are generating A NEW COPY OF HER SHIRT, not stealing her shirt off her back. she can still wear or sell her shirt as she pleases. i hate the "stealing" analogy because it is essentially not correct. i'm not saying THIS makes Napster ok, i'm saying this analogy is irrelevant.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Contrary to what the music industry believes, I think Napster is going to have a huge positive impact on them.
I know from my own experience looking for types of Swing Dance music (don't ask) that I've learned about swing greats such as Duke Ellington, Tommy Dorsey, Glen Miller, and Benny Goodman. It's been educational as I search web sites for some of the old greats and then download songs by them via Napster. I now know what songs I want on a CD compilation by these greats. And yes, I'm on the lookout for CDs by these old music stars. Why buy when the MP3s are free? Not all MP3s are created equal, some are good, some suck. I'd prefer a high-quality CD.
---------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
There is so much bad "science" out there, it's a wonder we're not still using leeches and bleeding to cure colds, etc.
-- Bird in the Bush: The Renewable Energy Blog http://www.birdinthebush.org