Napster
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
This whole thing is coming out of the Record Industry as a whole saying that napster is causing them to lose money. I once saw a survey back when this whole thing was getting started that showed that napsters user base were still the main money making market for these record labels. Some of us buying up to like 4 CDs a month... sometimes more. That takes into account there use of napster. By pushing the demise of napster that Record Industry takes a chance of alienating (sp?) a large portion of the people who yeild them the most money. It would be interesting to see how well their profits fair if napster is completely shutdown... Will a lot of people be so mad that they boycott buying CDs all together and just use the clones of napster that will most certainly arise. Joseph Dempsey jdempsey@cox.rr.com Joseph.Dempsey@thermobio.com "Software Engineering is a race between the programmers, trying to make bigger and better fool-proof software, and the universe trying to make bigger fools. So far the Universe in winning." --anonymous
-
This is going to be a tough battle for the publishers I think. Lets face it, there really isn't a big barrier to entry to the technology behind Napster, so as soon as Napster is shut down I'd expect a few dozen alternatives to pop up. Although I doubt it will actually happen, I think it would likely be in the Music industry's best interest to leave the millions of Napster users where they are, maybe charge a minimal fee $5-$10 dollars a month, and also add the ability for the music listeners to easily order a copy of the CD for themselves, including the CD insert, jewel case etc. Trying to stop this form of piracy will be virtually impossible, I think. David
-
i'm not 100% on this, but i believe there is a tax on blank cassettes in the US that goes directly to the record companies to cover home taping losses. also, i believe there is a similar tax in canada on blank "audio" CD-R's (no tax on "data" CD-R's). your comment about 2 good songs for $15 is exactly what the record companies are worried about. if people can get those 2 songs from napster, then they might not buy the CD. how would you feel if Napster was set up to trade copyrighted software - the same software that i assume most of are working on for our salaries? -c http://www.smalleranimals.com
totally agree and would like to add ... the copying of music from radio/album/cd onto cassette is ok for the record companies as the quality degrades after a single copy from a copy ... with digital it never does so there would be no incentive to buy anything and shazam ... no record companies bunch of vultures that they are they do need to make a living too as do the artists who make the music ... they just need to sort out a business model that allows for digital distribution whilst maintaining reasonable profits ... if $10 a month is cool with them i'd pay it no problem for the convenience personally i think $1 per song would be better and easier to understand and would probably get as much money as selling 10 songs (on a cd) for $10 as a lot more people would pay for one song than would buy 10 songs where 7 were rather iffy :suss: "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots"
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
Since nobody seems to feel like this is theft of copyrighted material... Let's start Codester® for the free exchange of all software - whether or not its copyrighted, patented or whatever ! Wait a minute - I believe that someone called 'warez is already doing this - oh well... Steven J. Ackerman, Consultant ACS, Sarasota, FL http://www.acscontrol.com steve@acscontrol.com sja@gte.net
-
The reason this issue seems complex is that people are constantly mixing two very similar but different issues into one. There are two sets of 'rights' that Napster interfers with - the rights of the artist to decide what happens to their music, and the rights of the record industry to conduct their legal business. Most people in favour of Napster probably just want something for nothing - it goes no deeper than that. For those that try to offer a rationale for their support of Napster, it's almost always based upon a variation of the argument that the "record Industry" is corrupt/immoral/greedy, and therefore it's the morally correct thing to do to oppose it at every turn. "They rip us off, so why not rip them off?" appears to be the underlying philosophy. I may even agree with this - I'm not sure, and it probably depends how much I like the last CD I bought! However, I have yet to hear a 'pro-Napster' argument the relates to the artist's rights, I can't see any argument that can resolve how to give the artist the control of thier material, and allow free digital copying at the whim of the end users. When I take a song from Napster, I remove the Artist's choice. At some stage, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the 'pro-Napster' camp if they are to truely try and suggest this 'free music' concept is NOT fundamentally about stealing. At the moment, the Artist generally sells/transfers the rights to material to a record company for money, then the record company sells the material to customers. If the "Free music" philosphy takes away the record company's ability to make money (and no, I don't believe Napster curently does that - but then Napster is only the 'thin edge of the wedge'), then the Record company will cease to exist. This does not seem to worry 'Napster' supporters (if fact, it probably makes them happy!). But once that has been achieved, how does the artist control the rights, and make their money?
I believe Rage against the Machine apologized to Napster d/lers who got booted out for d/ling their songs. They claimed that the record label did this action against their knowledge. Smashing Pumpkins wrote a couple of songs that was only meant for internet d/l.. for free. "No matter how hard you try you can't stop us now..." - Rage. Jake
-
This whole thing is coming out of the Record Industry as a whole saying that napster is causing them to lose money. I once saw a survey back when this whole thing was getting started that showed that napsters user base were still the main money making market for these record labels. Some of us buying up to like 4 CDs a month... sometimes more. That takes into account there use of napster. By pushing the demise of napster that Record Industry takes a chance of alienating (sp?) a large portion of the people who yeild them the most money. It would be interesting to see how well their profits fair if napster is completely shutdown... Will a lot of people be so mad that they boycott buying CDs all together and just use the clones of napster that will most certainly arise. Joseph Dempsey jdempsey@cox.rr.com Joseph.Dempsey@thermobio.com "Software Engineering is a race between the programmers, trying to make bigger and better fool-proof software, and the universe trying to make bigger fools. So far the Universe in winning." --anonymous
The record companies are obselete now because the internet can provide a way for the artist to get their art to the public. For example, there are web sites where cg artists sell their work to the public (through a membership fee). (example: http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/) There is even have a free 'preview' area. Why can musicians not do the same thing? I would be willing to pay to download a song. $1 per song sounds fine with me and $7 or $8 for 10 songs as an incentive for people to get the whole album. Sure people will still give songs to their friends and people will still download it off ftp, just as people traded tapes. Actually, it could be a great business opportunity to provide such a service (hosting, web design, secure payment) for bands. Daniel "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten (Yes, I do own this CD)
-
The record companies are obselete now because the internet can provide a way for the artist to get their art to the public. For example, there are web sites where cg artists sell their work to the public (through a membership fee). (example: http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/) There is even have a free 'preview' area. Why can musicians not do the same thing? I would be willing to pay to download a song. $1 per song sounds fine with me and $7 or $8 for 10 songs as an incentive for people to get the whole album. Sure people will still give songs to their friends and people will still download it off ftp, just as people traded tapes. Actually, it could be a great business opportunity to provide such a service (hosting, web design, secure payment) for bands. Daniel "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten (Yes, I do own this CD)
You overlook a few very important points, the most important of which is that it is the record companies that pay the money upfront to create the recpordings in the first place. Why are they going to give metallica/Madonna/Smashing Pumpkins or however the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars needed to record the music you want so badly. And if you think the 'home recording' can produce quality comparable to a major recording studio (with a paid record producer) then yoiu are kidding yourself. Make no mistake - the record industry is a complex industry. And Napster is just plain theft - the only reason we don't get too upset about it is that it has no obvious 'victim' (except the much hated "industry"). But the lack of 'victim' is an illusion - it's theft of compyrighted material, and someone will eventually pay.
-
You overlook a few very important points, the most important of which is that it is the record companies that pay the money upfront to create the recpordings in the first place. Why are they going to give metallica/Madonna/Smashing Pumpkins or however the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars needed to record the music you want so badly. And if you think the 'home recording' can produce quality comparable to a major recording studio (with a paid record producer) then yoiu are kidding yourself. Make no mistake - the record industry is a complex industry. And Napster is just plain theft - the only reason we don't get too upset about it is that it has no obvious 'victim' (except the much hated "industry"). But the lack of 'victim' is an illusion - it's theft of compyrighted material, and someone will eventually pay.
You miss a few important points also. For starters - home recording has come so far that some commercially released albums ARE being recorded using Cubase on PC's not much better speced than the one I am using to post this. This is an important point, because the barrier for entry into a musical career will no longer be the opinion of a record company exec., but how good your songs are and how well you use the net to get them in front of people. Remember how quickly everyone know/bought Cows with Guns ? The album blew, BTW. Overall this is a "good thing" for musicians ( lower barriers of entry, not Cows with Guns ), although probably bad for the N-Sync's and Britny Spears of the world. Secondly - record companies generally spend as much or more promoting a band like Britney as they do on studio costs. Again, the potential is there for manufactured music to die out somewhat. Either way, as has been noted here already, they will continue to make money from the playing of these songs on the radio, in supermarkets, etc. I agree however that the theft of copyrighted material is a "bad thing", however I believe it inevitable that the music industry will go to a direct supply model over the internet, with CD sales taking up a similar proportion to the number of people who buy software in boxes instead of on-line downloads. The music industry will face the same problem we already had - people willo download the work for free if they can, and pay if they have to. Overall I foresee a world where megastars are less rich, small artists who don't get label attention are more so, and everyone relies more on touring to make money. Just like my local computer store has lost it's cut of most software sales, the real losers will be the middle men, who did nothing wrong, but have been superceded by the digital age. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
You miss a few important points also. For starters - home recording has come so far that some commercially released albums ARE being recorded using Cubase on PC's not much better speced than the one I am using to post this. This is an important point, because the barrier for entry into a musical career will no longer be the opinion of a record company exec., but how good your songs are and how well you use the net to get them in front of people. Remember how quickly everyone know/bought Cows with Guns ? The album blew, BTW. Overall this is a "good thing" for musicians ( lower barriers of entry, not Cows with Guns ), although probably bad for the N-Sync's and Britny Spears of the world. Secondly - record companies generally spend as much or more promoting a band like Britney as they do on studio costs. Again, the potential is there for manufactured music to die out somewhat. Either way, as has been noted here already, they will continue to make money from the playing of these songs on the radio, in supermarkets, etc. I agree however that the theft of copyrighted material is a "bad thing", however I believe it inevitable that the music industry will go to a direct supply model over the internet, with CD sales taking up a similar proportion to the number of people who buy software in boxes instead of on-line downloads. The music industry will face the same problem we already had - people willo download the work for free if they can, and pay if they have to. Overall I foresee a world where megastars are less rich, small artists who don't get label attention are more so, and everyone relies more on touring to make money. Just like my local computer store has lost it's cut of most software sales, the real losers will be the middle men, who did nothing wrong, but have been superceded by the digital age. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
I agree that the world is changing, and that 'direct digital distribution' in some form is the way of the future. However, I would still (refine) my original point by saying that the total costs of doing (music) business are much higher that are expected. Imagine a band that successfully creates, releases and promotes some music via a new 'direct distribution' model. The band has 5 members, each wants to make $50,000 a year income. The costs of producing the music (spread over the year, in equipment, etc) is $50,000 - so total costs for the year are $300,000. The band sells their music at $10 a copy - they need to sell 30,000 copies to reach their (fairly moderate) targets. They need to establish an infrastructure to handle 30,000 customers a year - database, online credit validation, transaction tracking, refunds, etc. In short, they need to set up an online business, and have at least one person knowledgable about all this to ensure that it all works, and doesn't fall over (so they chose Linux rather than Windows XP ... oops, that's another story !!). Is this practical? No - in short we end up with a situation where a 'middle man' (such as the new-look Napster) will take on all this on behalf of the bands - and we are back to a model that has suppliers, customers, and a middle man. The details will be different, but the business model still needs a middle man, and they still need to be able to control their business and make their money. On the issue of home studio recording, I own a home studio, and I do NOT believe the gap in quality between my setup and a true studio is small - the differences are huge, and unlikely to shrink too much in the near future (and perhaps an even bigger difference is the ability to use the equipment - just 'cos you can buy it doesn't mean you can use it. That's why the best producers and sound engineers can command the salaries they do - they have a huge impact on the process!) And I am not convinced by the arguiment that "some albums are being recorded using Cubase...". Yes, true - and some albums in the seventies were recorded on 4 or 8 track systems. Some styles of music even sound better (like Punk) on cheaper recording setups. But not that many people would agree, and certainly most artists would not agree - and the trend is always towards greater sophistication, not less. Just to (overstate) the point- we are pretty much in agreement! Things are changing, and the record industry will have to evolve. But Napster is not about an 'distribution model'. It's ju
-
You overlook a few very important points, the most important of which is that it is the record companies that pay the money upfront to create the recpordings in the first place. Why are they going to give metallica/Madonna/Smashing Pumpkins or however the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars needed to record the music you want so badly. And if you think the 'home recording' can produce quality comparable to a major recording studio (with a paid record producer) then yoiu are kidding yourself. Make no mistake - the record industry is a complex industry. And Napster is just plain theft - the only reason we don't get too upset about it is that it has no obvious 'victim' (except the much hated "industry"). But the lack of 'victim' is an illusion - it's theft of compyrighted material, and someone will eventually pay.
You know, I really wish people would stop using the incorrect terms for things. Copyright infringement is not theft. It's infringement. Theft is depriving someone of physical property. Infringement is violating copyright law. Theft is criminal. Infringement is Civil (unless it gets to a certain level, in which it becomes Criminal, but it's still not theft). This is not meant to suggest that copyright infringement is OK, or to condone it. I've already posted my view in this thread, which more or less supports the artist. I'm just advocating the use of the correct terms. Claiming "theft" is a great way to get emotions riled up because everyone knows what theft is. Stop preying on peoples emotions to get people upset about the problem. Napster also provides a legal service as well. They provide a place for unsigned bands to get their music out to the world. People often overlook this.