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.
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
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.
what about singles that are produced? Won't there be a loss in that market?
I've spent more on Emusic.com this year alone than all of normal CD's two years ago.
Main reason... I purchase Punk-O-Rama Volumes 1 through 5 at Emusic.com , or pick them up at the Public Library (and rip), and suddenly I'm caught up in the punk scene (not really, j/k) but it opens new doors to bands that I know I like now. Sure, there might be a few main ones like NOFX, Bad REligion, just to name 2, but what about others? These compilations and 'testing' via Napster clues me in. However, finding these type of genres on Napster is pretty low, so when a Punk band just released their new album on EMusic.com 2 weeks ago, I'm much more likely to purchase it, than try my bad luck in finding these online.
The BIGGEST improvement to my music life due to Napster/newsgroups/et al, would be the BLUES. I knew I liked the blues, knew I heard some songs I loved, but dind't know who played it, song name, nuthin'. I would NEVER have bought a blues CD at $17 a crack just to see if I liked it! Picture this... I take a crack at an album in a record store... Pay $17, take home, play once, hated it!Repeat?
Thanks to ripping a bunch of Blues compilation from the library, I now know who the kings of blues are, and know that I like them: John Lee Hooker, Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, etc.
Not much of an argument for the RIAA, since all they want to sell is mainstream crud, and I can hear that crap on the radio anytime, and make my decision that way. But definately interest in non-mainstream music must be tripling as we speak.
I think that many people who usually buy a lot of CD's, still are. If you love music enough to buy that many at that price, you may continue to. However, we have to admit many of them have cut back drastically. As far as people like myself who never bought too many anyway (My total collection was only 120) then the sales went down to practically Zero, but my online sales have gone way up.
Rader
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
This is a big part of the RIAA members' fear of Napster and digital music in general - changing, unpredictable tastes. People who can go online and play around, sharing music with friends and strangers are more likely to be exposed to a wider range of music than people who listen to their meticulously programmed Top-40 (more like Top-15 these days) station.
Someone exposed to a wider range of music is less likely to direct all of their dollars and attention to the pap promoted and spoonfed to listeners. This mean fewer economies of scale from the marketing and A&R perspective, and the decline (not demise) of the superstar, with a return to more niche acts. A good thing from my perspective, but from a record company viewpoint, it's more efficient to keep people buying Brittney, Garth, and Jay-Z (or their handful of superstar peers) to the exclusion of most smaller acts.
I say, bring on the subscription model, and let the record companies recoup the loss in marketing efficiency in lower distribution costs (shipping bits instead of atoms). All You Can Eat is the model we need now, and as long as unsigned and signed but non-RIAA affiliated artists get access and listening habits have the same legal privacy protections as video rental habits, I'll be delighted.
Something tells me that day is a long way and 2^10 lawsuits away, alas, and may never happen w/ respect to privacy and outsider access.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
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?
Yet, there are also those who hang out at Costco every Saturday around noon just for the free samples. Everyone I know who does this also shops, but I suppose there must be a few that don't. Likewise, there are people who will never buy another CD as long as there's Napster.
I don't buy many CDs. I didn't before I started collecting MP3s, and I still don't now that I have a 6GB+ archive. However, as the collection grows, I'm getting more and more interested in having a lot of music, and therefore I'm becoming more and more interseted in purchasing CDs - not necessarily music I've already gotten from Napster, but just music in general.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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...
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?
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