Ok, supposedly the suit is to protect their rights and thus protect the revenue they get from CD sales . . . but if CD sales are based on satisfied/happy customers, this moves seems to be counter productive. I mean, what will be accomplished by giving this list of users to Napster? Suppose Napster blocks these users, I can see a few outcomes:
1. People will get their MP3s with other programs. In this case, nothing has been accomplished.
2. People will not be able to MP3s (because they know of no other method) and will get angry. Who will they get angry at? Probably Metallica. This will potentially hurt CD sales if they were previously Metallica fans.
3. One stops downloading MP3s and does nothing. It was great while it lasted, but no big deal.
4. People can't get MP3s so they go and buy the album. I list this as a possible outcome, but I don't think that this will happen. Once individuals get used to free MP3s, why would they go back to paying? I would guess most people would try to find other methods of getting MP3s.
Of the listed options, #4 is the only way that it would help revenue. Since a majority of people probably don't fall into #4, it seems that this action just hurts profits. Add that to legal fees and in the end Metallica will lose money. From an economical point of view, this action is just plain stupid.
Are they really profitting from the music itself? Isn't the profit due to the service they are providing? That is, by making the mp3s, storing them all in one central location and providing the bandwidth. So any revenue they get from that would be for providing a service, not for the music itself. It's like a record label. They (supposed to) get paid for advertising and distributing the music, not for making the music.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, supposedly the suit is to protect their rights and thus protect the revenue they get from CD sales . . . but if CD sales are based on satisfied/happy customers, this moves seems to be counter productive. I mean, what will be accomplished by giving this list of users to Napster? Suppose Napster blocks these users, I can see a few outcomes:
1. People will get their MP3s with other programs. In this case, nothing has been accomplished.
2. People will not be able to MP3s (because they know of no other method) and will get angry. Who will they get angry at? Probably Metallica. This will potentially hurt CD sales if they were previously Metallica fans.
3. One stops downloading MP3s and does nothing. It was great while it lasted, but no big deal.
4. People can't get MP3s so they go and buy the album. I list this as a possible outcome, but I don't think that this will happen. Once individuals get used to free MP3s, why would they go back to paying? I would guess most people would try to find other methods of getting MP3s.
Of the listed options, #4 is the only way that it would help revenue. Since a majority of people probably don't fall into #4, it seems that this action just hurts profits. Add that to legal fees and in the end Metallica will lose money. From an economical point of view, this action is just plain stupid.
Are they really profitting from the music itself? Isn't the profit due to the service they are providing? That is, by making the mp3s, storing them all in one central location and providing the bandwidth. So any revenue they get from that would be for providing a service, not for the music itself. It's like a record label. They (supposed to) get paid for advertising and distributing the music, not for making the music.