Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Almost Down To Pre-Napster Revenues
...they don't have Napster to kick around anymore.
For yesterday's press release, the RIAA commissioned a survey by a research firm to prove that music-downloading is to blame, but all they tell us about it is that "23 percent of surveyed music consumers say they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free." No more details provided, no link to the survey's raw numbers. So what does this mean? I guess 77 percent are buying more music because they're downloading it for free?
To put the new sales figures in perspective, a look at the big picture will be helpful. Free music-trading software had been in serious trouble since mid-2000. Despite indications that music-trading was helping sell CDs, the labels forced Napster to implement a name-blocking scheme. We ran a story in March 2001 pointing out that its traffic had fallen by 60%.
Then SF Gate ran a nice story last August, pointing out that declining RIAA sales seemed to mirror Napster downloads:
"At this point last year, with Napster in full swing, record sales were up 8 percent from the previous year. This year, sales of new albums -- not including established catalog titles -- are down 8 percent. That's quite a pendulum swing."
Sure, other file-trading software has taken Napster's place, but at this point it's fun just to watch the industry limp around after shooting itself in the foot.
Not that it's really hurting money-wise. All this week's numbers mean is that the RIAA's total revenue has declined almost to 1998 levels. In 1998 they made $13.71 billion; after peaking in the mid-$14-billions, last year they made $13.74 billion.
This probably is due party to the crummy economy, partly to their failure to find any new sound to co-opt and mainstream recently, and partly to lack of big artists releasing megahits like they did in 1999. You know music officially sucks when the labels have to pay someone $28million not to sing.
Oh, and partly due to the RIAA raising CD prices by $1.16, which is $0.25 over and above inflation (which has been higher than wage growth lately anyway). CDs are 94% of their revenue. Most industries, faced with declining sales, try lowering their prices. Not this one.
I've got two pieces of advice for the RIAA.
The first is to stop pissing off your own artists so much that they blow off the Grammys and throw their own party just to stick it to you. The musicians and singers are the ones making you rich. I know you think they're all interchangeable, but if you alienate them enough, when a new technology gives them an edge, they'll drop you like yesterday's sound.
The second is to reread Robert Heinlein's very first story Life-Line:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
This is stupid...maybe the reduction in sales is due to paying $18 for a CD...because back when sales were up, it was $14.
It costs less to make a CD than a casette tape. So why do CDs and DVDs cost more than tapes? Because it's what 'they' think the market will bear... wankers.
I have to admit that for the first time I began to believe the music industry had a point about piracy when I saw a grey haired woman pushing 60 in the coffee shop talking to her friend about all the music she'd downloaded on the weekend using Kaaza.
Plain and simple. People cut out the little extras when things go bad and CD's fall into that category. Plus most new music just friggin blows anyways. Really.
All the best,
--Bob
It's a hard truth for the recording industry to accept, but as a friend of mine said, "when you're into Napster, you're into music." I have to say I bought a few dozen CDs during the Napster era. I've purchased one since the downfall (and that was a gift). Here's hoping the artists get more joy out of the RIAA than ordinary users like us.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Go watch MTV or MTV2 for a while.
Tell me you instantly want to go out and buy the albums groups are hawking. The music is either pablum for the teen masses, a la Britney Spears, pseudo-intellectual neo-sensitive grunge like Creed, or mindless, repetitive breakbeats with woman singing, 'ooh, ooh baby' underneath it.
Not inspiring, is it? There's good music being made, but it's not being marketed. Maybe the RIAA hasn't got it through their inscrutable little heads that people don't want the same shit they've been given for decades! People want intelligent, thought-provoking, emotionally engaging music. Meanwhile, this crap is pushed on it, and frankly, I think the CD consumer is starting to wise up and decide it's just not worth the $15 to buy the CD.
Good job, RIAA. Keep it comin'. Meanwhile, I'll find my niche music in the corners of the Internet where you'll never find it hiding.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
I was unemployed for 3 months. What was the biggest luxary I had spent money on? Seeing lord of the rings. Yes. That was my biggest luxary spending. Well, that and food.
With ~5.6% people unemployed, and cut backs of course... WHERE DO YOU THINK WE WILL GET THE MONEY TO BUY $18 CD'S!!
Thank God I'm into older stuff now. At least those are a little cheaper...
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
In the UK, CD sales are up Again. Are they going to tell us people don't use P2P systems in the UK now?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
So far this year: Rick Boucher asks the RIAA and IFPI to explain how their copy protection schemes work and raises the question if the copy protection is illegal under Audio Home Recording Act of 1996.
On January 9th, the RIAA lays off 16 employees, including Karen Allen, their "Internet Evangelist"
The Recording Artists Coalition announced fund raising concerts to take place the night before the Grammy's to raise money to fight the recording industry for fair contracts and accounting oversight. The concerts sell out.
The Department of Justice investigation into antitrust issues continues.
The EFF steps up to defend Morpheus as having substantial non-infringing uses.
The Supreme Court decides to hear the case of Eldred vs. Ashcroft (started out as Eldred vs. Reno) to determine if the retroactive Copyright Term Extension Act is constitutional.
The Second District Court of Appeals reinstates the Chambers vs. Warner Brothers Case saying the judge considered evidence he shouldn't have. (this is the watershed case for older artists)
Webcasting rates are set, most likely sending almost every webcaster offline, including non profit and college stations. Rates are retroactive to 1998. The webcasters have 30 days to pay after the rates are adopted.
Suncomm (Media Cloque) and Charley Pride's record label settle the consumer case brought by consumers over "protected CDs", agreeing to clearly label the CD as incompatible with DVD player, Computer CD Players and portable CD players.
Napster Judge Marilyn Hall Patel hands the RIAA a stunning defeat in a surprising turn around, by allowing Napster to do discovery on the copyrights the RIAA says they own, appoints a "Special Master" and gives the RIAA three weeks to prove they own the copyrights and that they are in fact "work for hire". (which the Recording Artists Coalition says they aren't) She also allows discovery on possible misuse of those copyrights to stifle competition to MusicNet and PressPlay.
Filesharing is at an all time high.
The RIAA releases figures showing that CD shipments are down 10.3%, but sales are only down 2.3 % in dollars.
Five songwriters file suit in LA District Court over record club sales and lack of accounting oversight.
California Senator Kevin Murray plans to introduce a bill this year to penalize record labels that purposely underpay royalties, this is in addition to the bill on the 7 year contract limitation. THE EFF and 4 law school clinics launch chillingeffects.org to educate internet users to their rights online.
RIAA forms the California Music Coalition to fight against artists rights. Organizing support from people who are subject to the 7 year contract limitation in CA., the same rights the artists want.
The RIAA continues to harp on declining profits and the disasterous effects of Napster and other P2P sites because their agenda, I think, from day one has been to get some sort of legislation that gives them the power of a Federal agency, while maintaining their for-profit status.
It may sound strange or conspiracy minded, but look at the way most of their press releases are written. Their releases make liberal use of the words, such as "piracy" and "illegal."
The RIAA is not just looking for the courts to shut down any site that they deem a danger to their continued profitability. They are looking for the government to give them to the power to do something about it themselves.
Go *around* the RIAA quintopoly. Scott McCloud's cartoons "I Can't Stop Thinking" five and six have some ideas (which for some reason REALLY anger some folks). I have worked for tips before, it's not always the best living, but it pays the rent and tips of a reasonable size are a lot more palatable than overpriced CDs to consumers, and a lot better than nothing for musicians.
Anyway, lots of technology exists that could easily stop the bottleneck that limits feedback between consumers & the music business. I know, because I sell (some of) it for a living...
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Thank God for NPR.
Best Slashdot Co
I don't know about the rest of the world, but I know that I'm not buying much music these days because I'm so busy duplicating DVDs left and right. Well, that and exporting strong encryption :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Let's see you keep raising prices even though costs of production are declining (particularly the switch from LPs to CDs years ago) even when everyone knows what the real cost of raw materails is. You cheat all of the artists on royalty payments. You try to stop or price out of existence every streaming radio station. YOu insist upon a tax on all blank recordable media in Europe, and try the same in the US. Shutdown Napster and half-heartedly have some of your members set up bad "replacements". Effectively kill the singles market, insisting that everyone buy full albums from one-hit wonders.
And, then you are shocked and apalled that everyone is sharing Digital copies?
--- Ron
Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which, among other things, deregulated the airwaves. That put control of a majority of the big-market radio stations in the hands of a small number of companies. DJs are no longer DJs, they're "radio personalities". Playlists come from corporate and they're narrower than ever. As a result, the music that gets played is homogenous in the extreme. Oh, by the way, one company in that mix controls the majority of concert promotions too (Clear Channel Communications).
So why are CD sales off? Maybe because music that's on the radio is so weak and generic. Because the bands that get promoted are done so from on high in a corporate boardroom. The record companies have always managed things from above, but before the great airwave merger-fest started in 1996, they still had to work with local DJs and concert promoters and that invariably meant more variety. Now they all work in a harmonious corporate union and the result is music that more or less sucks.
They want a scapegoat? They need to look at this slick machine they've created.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Back when I was in college in my 20's I bought a lot of CD's. Now I'm in my 30's and I don't buy near as many CD'sas I did when I was in my 20's. There was, however, a brief increase in my CD buying when Napster was around. I hate all of our local radio stations so I'd look at the playlists of websites that played music I did like. I couldn't hear the music though. With Napster, I had the ability to preview the songs which usually then meant going on to Amazon.com and buying the CD's. Now, for one reason or another, Napster is gone and I just don't buy CD's anymore. I know I could use Limewire or some other sharing program but I don't. I can say for a fact that Napster caused me to buy more CD's. My friends have similar testimonies.
Make less crap.
I'm not going to buy an $18 dollar CD dammit. I'll buy two $12 dollar ones though. Make less crap, drop the cost of the CD, and I'll buy more. As a finger to the man, I'll just use etree for now (though the RIAA get kickbacks for CD-R sales so I lose either way). I've bought all the CD's of the artists I want to buy for now. Nothing appealing has come out lately.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
The mass market of consumers owns a CD player and likely has one in their car. The mass market consumers do not own MP3 players that they use over their home stereo or in their car or even as a portable device for that matter. So despite the large number of "casual" Internet users that became proficient at downloading a few MP3s via a file sharing service (re: Napster), most people still bought CDs.
I think what the RIAA is missing here is that the people who really download lots and lots of MP3s are never going to spend the money to buy this music in the first place. Case and point: I really wanted Tenacious D's album so I bought the CD. A good friend of mine kinda likes Tenacious D, but not enough to buy the album, so he downloaded the MP3s he likes. Since he never would have bought the CD in the first place, you can't really count him as lost revenue. He would have never bought the CD.
It would be interesting to me to find out how many people who used Napster (and still use Morpheus, et al) that never intended to buy the CDs in the first place. Removing them from the equation would provide a more accurate look at what the RIAA lost/gained.
My sigs always suck.
If I liked it, I would usually go and buy it just to have a nice hard copy of it, even better if it has lyrics and band pics etc. Everyone I know with the money to spare would do the same.
Now that I can never find music anymore, I simply don't buy CDs anymore. I haven't bought a CD in months, and the last one I bought was a Christmas present for my fiancee.
Someone please tell me, just how the fuck am I supposed to find music when I have no interest int he type of music that gets radio play? Even if I was interested in that type of music, most stations play the same 20 songs 10 times every day, for months and months at a time.
Abso-fucking-lutely ri-fucking-diculous!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
People are precisely right on CD costs. Whenever you look at a breakdown of the costs on a CD, companies throw in all these extra costs, like marketing/promotion, record company cut, and artists cut....
Here's how the marketing budget is being wasted: 1) On an average of at least once a week, the music shop where I work receives an OVERNIGHTED package of promo materials for us to put up in our store... usually consisting of 1 poster, and usually of someone mostly obscure, or of someone who would not move in sufficient quantity for us to warrant putting up a poster 2) We received probably 3-7 promotional packages a day containing posters, promo flats, giveaway CD samplers, value-adds and other things that cost the store $0, but instead come out of the marketing budget 3) Additionally, we also receive promos of a lot of things that usually go into a nice box to never be heard, or sold to another store for their used stock. All of these materials contribute to your higher CD costs, but you don't even like these bands.
Another question that's been on my mind for a while is: Well, once the CD has gone out of its initial print run, why don't prices drop because they don't need to promote it anymore, it's part of the back-catalog then? Well, not really... manufacturers are more keen on cutting-out and dropping from the catalog older releases by an artist rather than moving them to mid-price.
And one more thing: There are great artists out there on nice independent labels that know how to manage their money and don't squander it on useless promotion nor to line the executive's pockets. Case in point: The White Stripes, on Detroit's Sympathy for the Record Industry label... Releases ~$13, excellent rock reminiscent of early Zeppelin... Hell, there are a whole litany of these artists featured in Coalition of Independent Music Stores stores... find your local store at www.cimsmusic.com
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
If napster lives, "the people" will choose the stars, not the recording industry. The RIAA knows and is not comfortable about this.
Now artists will be able to command MORE money.
Today, I watch RAP on TV and hear it on the radio and realize they are forcing complete garbage on me. 95% of RAP is total trash. Yet they still sell this trash because they force it down your throat.
This is what the RIAA wants.
1. they go find a no name artist.
2. Sign him/her to an abusive contract that he/she will agree to out of desperation or necessity.
3. He/she drops a hit record and the RIAA takes all the profits (see 2).
4. By the time he gets name recognition and can sign a quality contract, the RIAA wants him to be washed up so they can push their NEW no name artists.
So its not about CD sales at all. Its about power. Its just like any other industry. If you can flood the market with artists, their salaries will drop. But napster will allow us to filter to the songs and artists we like, and IGNORE the trash we dont, sending salaries for those artists who remain right back up.
Things are very different. My school had to implement and upload/download limit on internet1 traffic whlie they go over the options on how to control this problem. (Most likely they'll be using a packateer...) The problem has been caused due to music/movie etc transfers on morpheous and kazaa. Becasue of our schools privacy policy and unrestrictive content, the school doesn't want to censor or block any incoming material or outgoing. They don't monitor content. Into the first couple weeks of the semester, before the bandwitdh restrictions, the network was soo saturated to the point that i1 traffic was
Hell, if Sorority Sarah can burn the new N'SYNC album on her Compaq, she's not going to buy it.
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
I'm a little befuddled by the tack that free music advocates are taking against the RIAA -- denying that song swapping will cause a decline in CD sales.
Of course it will cause a decline. It may not have yet, but the CD's days are numbered. Why? They're an obsolete technology. They're clunky. They require packing and shipping. They hold a limited amount of music. They're prone to loss and scratches. If you think song swapping won't accelerate the decline in sales, you're fooling yourselves.
The record companies see the writing on the wall, and are trying to milk as much money out of CD sales before their collapse. Of course they're going to whine about everything that can even be perceived as a drop in sales; it's just part and parcel of doing everything they can do to receive court decisions sympathetic to their financial interests.
I object to that article, and to the next reply.
The problem with this Heinlein quote is that the RIAA's beef, however much we may vilify them (and they are unquestionably vile), IS supported by statute and common law. There are few people less supportive of the Content Kings than me but if I have to say it a million times I will: as long as all we're doing is trying to justify the violation of copyright law, which is what downloading copyrighted music or burning a copyrighted CD that you do not own UNQUESTIONABLY is, we will NEVER make progress in changing things to a better system.
Legitimate consumer and legal beefs with the RIAA are plentiful:
* Do the Content Kings REALLY own the copyright to specifc recordings, or should many have reverted to the authors?
* Does the way the "legitimate" online music businees operates qualify as monopolistic practices?
* Is the DMCA constitutional, or is it in fact an example of "prior restraint," illegalizing the POTENTIAL uses of legitimate tools?
* Copy-protection schemes that produce "CDs" that do not follow CD specs, do not play in the range of equipment the consumer has reasonably come to expect, and reduces the versatility of the product.
* Treatment of artists, overpricing, the endless extension of copyrights... All these and more are totally valid points of attack. You wanna burn CDs, download free music? Be my guest. Hell, I speed. But stop this nonsense that somehow the courts and corporations should recognize our "right" to violate copyright law. Every argument like this just strengthens their case and makes the further legislation of information tools that much more likely.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Why do we get defensive every time the RIAA trots out the "falling sales, evil pirates, end of civilisation as we know it" line?
Why don't we respond with: "Yeah, sales are down, and it's your fault, you soulless reptiles. What the fuck are you going to do about it? I hate your over engineered muzak, and the dead eyed meat puppets that mime to it, and your old fashioned distribution system, and the fact that most of the cost of an album goes to weaels in marketing and legal, up the noses of desparately unhappy borderline morons in G-strings, or in <strike>bribes </strike> campaign contributions. Fix it, and fix it now, or get the hell out of the way and let someone else have a go at supplying the demand rather than trying to control it through an abusive monopoly."
Oh wait, I just said it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I dunno about you, but I gave up on MTV, it just sucks too much. I also don't listen to the radio too much, it's just more of the same crap that's on MTV. If you want to find a new artist who's any good, about the worst place to do it is MTV or the radio.
Mostly I find new music from referral from friends. "Hey, check this out." That used to be done by going out to a bar and listening to a band, something I don't really have the time for these days. These days someone sends me an MP3 clip. And you know what? If I like it, I first try to see if I can buy it straight from the artist (many many small bands sell them off their own websites). If I can't do that, I try Amazon. Because you can bet your bottom dollar that the cool stuff isn't at Best Buy.
Outside of those kinds of referrals, I've subscribed to an actual (gasp) pay-for-stream service, RealOne. Their commercial-free genre-based streaming system is worth $10/month; terrific for background noise.
But having used RealOne for a few months now, I can see places where their model is seriously incomplete. For one, if I like a clip it's a pain to go listen to it again or to go listen to the whole album. There's no way I can forward a reference to the clip to someone so they can hear it too. There's a link to Amazon to buy the album, but no way to buy it and get it on MP3 immediately and the album delivered later.
These companies really need to use a mixed model to build a strong business. You need streaming content for "browsing". You need referral services for audience building. You need purchasing features for retail. And, this being the internet, you need immediate gratification so that when you buy the album, you have it /now/. And if they're going to charge CD prices for MP3 content, they're going to have to send the CD too.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
"Is this CD copy protected?"
"I don't know. They don't label all that are."
"The only CD player I have is in my computer. If this is copy protected, I will not be able to play it. I will have bought what is for all intents and purpouses a shiny piece of metal. Can I at least try this to see if I can play this?"
"Sorry, but if the case has been opened, there are no refunds."
Yes, that will encourage more record sales.
"The good die first." "Most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns." --- MST3K
I've seen this "analysis" before (that Napster boosted CD sales and that its shutdown caused the recent decline in profits), and I'm not sure I buy it. It smacks of the usual after this, therefore because of this thinking. It's like the hemline theory. Someone noticed that stock prices and the length of womens' hemlines seemed to track together. Look! The stock market is determined by how long skirts are!
It's possible that Napster had a hand in both driving up revenues and then later driving them back down. But without more evidence other than "See! See! They happened at the same time!" I'm going to remain skeptical.
Don't you find it odd that 20% of these people filled out a survey saying "I downloaded free music from the net."? Most of these people know it's illegal. I have a hard time imagining they'd fill out that survey.
In any case, I bet the survey's question was more like "Have you ever downloaded music?", "Did you pay for that download?". And then, I think the RIAA said "every time somebody downloads a song, they don't buy a CD."
This sounds like baloney to me. The reason I'm not buying CD's today is that I'm boycotting the RIAA. I suppose they could blame that on Napster, i.e. suing Napster and not providing a solution to fill consumer's desires.
"Derp de derp."
OK, unemployment is up, consumer confidence unexpectedly dove yesterday....what do these companies expect???? Infintely increasing market share and sales. RIAA let me give you a clue....the world economy is in a RECESSION! These dopes haven't even considered the macro-economic state of the world.
I guess it's easier to blame napster and the terrorists and whoever else they can think of.
-ted
I'd like to see some usage statistics on Morpheus. I'd be willing to bet that most people look for specific songs, not whole albums. If I'm right, then the RIAA's case weakens.
They claim that 'Napster like downloading of music' is hurting their sales. I think what's really happening, in most cases, that people are downloading songs that they're interested in, particularly the older ones. I got to peak in a couple of people's MP3 lockers from way back when, and most of their songs were made at least 2 years ago, and date all the way back to the Beatles. I realize this isn't a very accurate slice of the world, but think about it, how many people do you think are saying "Hmm... I wonder what Pink Floyd is like?" and going and finding out? What are they supposed to do? Go to the store and try to find these albums? That's fine and dandy, but you don't know what you're buying there. Why pay $10-$15 for a CD when you only want one song?
In any case, if somebody downloads a song, buying a CD still has value. Why? Because there are usually 10 or so more songs on it to listen to. What the person has actually downloaded is a teaser to go get the CD. In which case, it's even more valuable to the RIAA because if the user likes the song, they have more reason to go buy the album. If they don't buy the album, then it's likely that the content wasn't enticing enough. That's not the RIAA's fault.
Part of me can't help but wonder if the RIAA is trying to protect themselves against sales lost due to customers really know what's on the CD. *Shrug*
"But they can go download the rest of the album, if they like it!" -- this is what a RIAA rep would say in a Milhouse kind of voice. I think you can search for albums on the net. Who knows, maybe in the future Morpheus will get so good that all music is available. Until then, in the time it'd take me to get the album (i.e. searching for it, trying to find sources that are reliable, etc), I could have gone to the store and gotten it.
If the day comes where entire albums are up for instant download on Morpheus, then the RIAA has lost their own battle. Today they could provide a means for people to legitimately buy individual songs in MP3 (or equiv) format. If they did that, then I could download any song I wanted from a fast server without having all the headaches of a p2p network. Every day they don't do that, more and more people wouldn't try it if it did materialize.
In short, the RIAA's losses are their own fault. People want individual songs but can't get them legally without overpaying for them. File sharing is a result of a new market trend. A competent organization'd say "How can we make money here?" instead of fighting it like a bunch of spoiled babies.
"Derp de derp."
From my own buying habits I know I buy far more movies since the prices started dropping. Walmart has had VHS movies for $5-6 for some time and I've bought most of the ones they've made available. They now also have DVD's for $7-$10 which I've taken to buying instead of the VHS because I like DVD's better. I buy lots of movies because they are cheap and I buy almost no music because it's priced insanely. I actually buy the music videos on DVD for less than I could buy just the music on CD. How does that make sense?
I'll still copy and even share the movies I buy but I buy far more. I have a bootleg copy of Harry Potter but I still plan on buying it on DVD when it's released. Because of the download size of LotR I decided to wait for the DVD rather than downloading it but I wouldn't have had I still had broadband. Not only does price matter but also release schedule. The studios need to understand that the DVD should be available as soon as the movie is in theatures. In many cases we'll still go to the theature.. for the experience.. despite the fact we own the movie already. Afterall many of us go watch good movies more than once at the theature anyway.
One more thing music could learn from movies is that they need to release more than one version of a CD. A cheap version that is nothing but the CD for those who are satisfied with that and something more along the lines of a collectors edition later that might have extras such as a cool box (Rocky Horror Picture Show has an awesome DVD box), lyrics, information about the band, maybe a DVD of the music videos, etc. People will buy a product twice if the first time is a good deal and the second time offers stuff a 'true fan' will crave. Movie studios seem to understand this better than the music industry. The Phantom Menace Collectors Edition was also a nice release.. the inclusion of the film clip etc was very cool IMO and it probably cost them less than a nickle.
If movies, music, and games would drop to $3/each I might buy 10+ a week (I buy 1-2 now) and would be much less likely to bother downloading them. They have to let me play them on whatever device I want though. If I can't play it in Linux and mess around with editing them etc then I'll go back to ripping and burning.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Let me start off by saying that most of my life I have been a music junkie. My dealer was the owner of a small record store in my hometown. I would walk into the store and he (knowing my musical tastes) would peddle me some free samplers from the record industry with a few sample songs from the album --- or sometimes a pre release FULL album thrown in for a bone. I would be ever so greatful that I was getting this "special" service. In retrospect he could set his clock by the fact that I would be marching in his store in a few days to purchase a full length album or two from the group of sample tapes he had given me before. I would leave the store with my new purchased albums and a new batch of sample tapes. Repeat and wash for 10 years and a tape collection over 500.
5 years later...The "big" record stores laugh at me when I ask for any samples. Radio does not play "my type of music"....I have know way of knowing what music to purchase....Let alone where to hear a sample before making the purchase....Needless to say, I go the next few years with only buying a handful of CD's (mostly from artists who had released music I liked "back in the day" or to replace my favorite crappy tapes with CD's.)
Fast forward to Napster....Much like the sample tapes I used to get when I was a kid...I can download a few obscure album songs from a band I read about and actually have a fair and partial decision making process....AND guess what -- I started to frequent the music stores like crazy, and started filling up my CD collection with FRESH music from new bands, and old bands I had somehow missed the first time around.
Post Napster: I have not been back to the record store because even if I had a gift certificate for a wheel barrow load of free CD's, I would not even know where to start....I tried gnutella for awhile, but it was not the same....Napster represented the WHOLE (by the numbers of people using it), everything else is just scattered pieces -- and if I was looking for top 40 or greatest hits records then maybe that would suffice -- but I am looking for obscure music from bands that may have never sold any more albums than I have fingers, never made the airwaves of radio, no MTV, yet still managed to get a record contract.
Bottom line: the industry has failed. And until I can walk into a record store that has all of the trappings of my former "dealer" OR can easily SNARF music samples from an endless pit of obscure recordings such as Napster -- then the recording industry will never see another red cent from me thank you.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.