Napster will be shut down

Great Debates
61

Arnold Winkelried: If CD sales are up 8%, perhaps they would be up more without Napster?
CNote Chris: Givin that pretzel logic, how can you say that the 8% gain isn’t because of Napster?

I don’t know the reasons for the 8% raise in sales. I was refuting the claim of a poster saying “record companies are not losing money because of Napster - sales are up 8%.” That is not a logical conclusion. Sales could be up 8% for a wide variety of reasons.

Arnold Winkelried: Do you know of any problems with the methodology of this RIAA study?
CNote Chris: O.K… Do you you know any stats that support the validity of the study or anecdotal reports that you seem to follow?

I posted a link mentioning the RIAA study to refute your incorrect statement «Every possible study has shown it adds to records sales, rather than hurt it.»

I will state it again: it is a fact that there is a RIAA study showing that 22% of Napster users buy less or no CD’s. You state that the study is biased. It is up to you to support your statements, not me.
Or if you prefer, since you claim to know of several studies showing that Napster helps record sales, why don’t you post a link to those?

Quote from Time magazine article: “It doesn’t require rocket science to say you are going to have a very hard time selling something if someone is giving it away,” says Cary Sherman, general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America.
CNote Chris: Of course they’re going to say this, do you expect anything else? They’re the people suing Napster.

Does this mean I can automatically discount all your arguments, since you are a user of Napster and profit from their services? Following your argument, it is obviously impossible for you to say anything relevant on the subject.

62

By the way, from the Time Magazine article cited above, you can also find a description of the reasons for which the defenders of Napster think that their suit is valid. I belive that Time magazine has made a reasonable effort at impartiality.

63

I don’t want to get into this debate again–my feelings on the issue have already been posted, but I would like to reiterate on fact:

  • Arnold Winkelried said *

Whatever your opinions on the matter, it is worth noting that this * does * in fact mean that up to 68% buy the same or more.

Of course, I don’t know whether the study included “didn’t respond”. If it did, then that number is much less meaningfull–it could be 22% less or none, 0% same or more, and 68% didn’t respond.

However, if it didn’t have another category, then you can say with pretty good certainty that 68% buy the same or more–even by industry statistics. Again, maybe 67 of that 68% is the same, and only 1% or more, but…

As I said, my feelings are posted elsewhere, but that really is a misleading statistic (not that all of them aren’t).

64

I generally have tremendous respect for the intellignece and reasoning powers of the average Doper, but it’s interesting to see how it all goes out the window when it gets personal.

Personally, I love Napster. I think it’s absolutely amazing. I really only got into recently, and what I’ve primarily used it for is:

  1. tracking down obscurities
  2. Reminding myself of songs I’ve loved in the past
  3. Learning about new music from similar minded folk (by searching the users that have what I’m looking for)

But ya know what? I never kid myself that I have any RIGHT to have these recordings. I do not. It is NOT the same as a buddy giving me a tape, and the courts have covered that. It’s a whole other ball game.

I am alarmed and disappointed at those who would begrudge the artist’s and their record companies the RIGHTS THEY DO HAVE to make money from what they create, produce, and market. That is what copyright law is ABOUT, people…protecting the artist from having their work stolen without compensation to them for it.

And every time you download that Metallica or Sting song and do NOT go out and buy the CD, you have done exactly that.

Let’s remember: just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean it’s alright.

So…to wrap this up: Go ahead and be pissed off that your easy route to free music is being shut down. But don’t blow smoke up your own ass or anyone else’s that you should have or do have any legal or moral right to do it.

stoid

PS: What I have read, as far as studies go, show that in the big college towns, where it is assumed the heaviest Napster use is taking place, CD sales have slipped considerably. This strikes me as completely logical. Not only has Napster saved me from buying CD’s I might have otherwise purchased, it has done the same for everyone I know. Not because we wouldn’t have liked them, but because we have the songs…why go out and pay for them? This becomes even more true for those of us who own CD-burners, and that will soon be everyone who has a computer. Wow…think of the that: the money you spend on a burner is money you could save ten times over by stealing the music you want!

Like I said, I do it, too… I just don’t try to defend it.

65

While I, on the other hand, have yet to use Napster, but (at least within my value system) recognize the need for its presence. How’s that for an interesting pair of contradictions, Stoidela? That gives us all the possibilities: users and nonusers defending Napster, and users and nonusers criticizing the morality of using Napster. I like debates like these. :slight_smile:

I would like to see a free-market solution that would cause the record industry to sell music the way many of us want to acquire it - track by track. To be able to purchase long-out-of-print tracks that the record industry doesn’t make available, but clearly could. And I would like to see a free-market solution to the music industry’s price gouging. (Just because they can do it doesn’t make it right, either.) But given the monopolistic nature of the business, there’s really no legal counter to what they’re doing.

So I’m not joining the ranks of the Napster users, but I’m cheering them on. It’s kinda like the French Revolution (only less so, thank goodness) - it’s hard to justify it, but how else was France going to get from monarchy to democracy? Same here, IMO: in order to get to a point where record companies sell their entire library of tracks online for reasonable prices, and people once again don’t bother to download for free because the price is right and people disapprove more of ripping off the companies, the artists, or whoever - the route to that future is through Napster and Gnutella, I strongly believe. The record companies will only become responsive to consumer expectations at gunpoint, and Napster and its successors are the gun.

66

The French Revolution hardly went from the monarchy to democracy…it took until about the late 1800s to form a successful republic. Napoleon, Louis Philippe (Is that the right one?) Napoleon III anyone?

67

As I mentioned in a similar thread over at Great Debates (where this belongs, BTW)…

It doesn’t bother me that the record companies are not making anything when I download an mp3. I know they’d screw me if they had the chance. Besides, they have netted quite a bit more from me since I started using Napster, not because I buy more music but because I buy more new music. If I haven’t heard much on CD, I’ll usually wait until I can find it used before I buy it. After Napstering a few tracks, I’m much less apprehensive about laying down $13.99 at my neighborhood record shop. (Note that record companies make zilch from used CD sales.)

It does, however, bother me that Napster makes money on the transaction. They don’t now, but they obviously plan to do so at some point. The fact that it is currently free has given them an undeserved air of altruism. Slate put it best–Napster doesn’t want to eliminate the middleman, they want to become the new middleman.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I’m all for Gnutella and the other free file sharing services that aren’t gearing up to make a profit down the road. As for the lawsuit, it’s like watching a Duke-UNC basketball game–I’m not fond of either, so it’s hard to root for either side.

Dr. J

68

What is UP with you people? Since when is it a crime to make money? Since when is it a crime to charge for a product or service? Since when is it a crime to profit from one’s labors, creativity, investment?

“Price gouging”??? We aren’t talking about getting screwed on the price of a loaf of bread to keep you alive, here, people. We’re talking about the price of a CD, which is an entertainment. A pleasure item. If they want to charge $100 each, that’s their business. They won’t sell as many records, and we would (If this were 1990) listent to the radio more.

And give me a break with the whole French Revolution crap. Are you kidding?

And you are kidding yourself mightily if you think that “reasonable pricing” of individual songs will reverse the thieving trend. If you can pay 10 cents for something, or get something free, what are ya gonna do? Dig out your credit card and give away information about yourself, or snag it free?

Puhleeze.

S

69

ditto RTFirefly!

I think the next logical step would to offer track by track sales, including out of print titles.
While I mostly search for out of print stuff I’d be lying if I said that was all I’ve done. I’ve been burned far too many times by the one hit wonders, who release a single surrounded by 12 dissimilar tracks which basically suck.
Lots of the music I like never even gets released as a single as well, so I have no other choice but to buy the 13+ dollar song.
I knew the napster honeymoon was to be short lived, but lets see if this can send a message to the powers that be of what the people want.
Let me say though, that I would never want the medium to be changed where the artists only make/release singles.(Well, any more than what essentially exists now.) There are far too many bands that do make a solid body of work worth buying, just not often enough.

70

Well, I was afraid I’d get pulled into this:

To paraphrase Michael Moore:

  1. There is nothing in the Constitution about stockholders

  2. There is nothing in the Constitution about profit.

  3. If profit is king, why don’t we let GM sell crack? They make a few thou on a 2000 pound car. They could make billions selling that much crack.

I’m not offering that as a justification for using Napster, but it * is * a pretty effective rebuttal to the tired old, “we have a right/responsibility to make a profit” argument (not just about Napster, but about things in general).

71

Well, I think that a good leam of lawyers could put a serious hurt on the RIAA for an anit-trust/cartel suit. No one here has the resourses to definiatively decide if there is price gouging going on or not, but I will note that the companies do not compete on the pricing. Record companies compete for buyers by trying to lasso better or more marketable talent, not by trying to sell at the lowest profitable price. Considering there are at least 18 substantial record companies, the fact that prices have not dropped in a decade make it very suspicioius to me. (BTW, I agree that $13 is on the low side of the average)

Of course two wrongs don’t make a right, but it is worth noting that most of the Napster support is a reflection of the disdain for the record companies and their practices. The artists have been fighting the record industry for years. The record company screws the music biz from both sides, over-charging consumers, and signing up struggling artists to slave labor deals. Yeah its over dramitic but there are some ugly things going on.

Arnold, the story did include the sentance you referenced, but I think its far from a disclaimer. Its not intended to mitigate the opinion of the writer, or stand out as to inform the casual reader. I don’t accuse Time Magazine of lying or providing false statistics, but they make no claim of impartiality, and I believe the article reads very biased against Napster. An AP newswire has the burden of being expected to remain impartial. Time magazine has never, and will never, claimed to be a unbaised font of factual information and straightforward news. They are an entertainment medium. I don’t begrudge them this, but I think its unfair to compare Time to a Newpaper or other supposed impartial publication which we should give the benefit of the doubt. As I said, it read as it was strongly in favor of the judges decision, but they don’t attempt to be anything other so I am not going to critisize. My initial point was just intended to point out the relationship which seemed to have an effect.

As for the business model of Napster, I have no idea how they ever intend to make money (other than short sighted VC). I don’t follow the other posters point that the other sites like Gnutella and Scour aren’t in it to make money. As far as I know they all hope to make money, and Scour had ad banners, Napster doesn’t, what makes Napster look like a money grubbing opportunist here?

Many of you have pointed out Time’s quote seems to support Napster’s claims that they help the music industry, albeit incidentally. It says 22% of Napster users buy less music, Time convieniently (reflecting my opinion that Time has be less than impartial) left out the rest of the breakdown. Let me first point out that 100%-22% = 78% not 68%, unless I missed 10% accounted for somewhere. Can’t believe that hasn’t been mentioned yet. I agree that if only 22% of Napster users buy less, then that other 78% must buy as much and more. Since the record company seems to claim that any free music equals less sales, it is contradicted by the 78% of the 20 million users who are buying more since using Napster. Its a reasonable bet that part of that 8% increase is there.

72

78% it is…it’s too late, my brain isn’t working, so I just went with the previously posted number…that’ll learn me. Though, as I said, that * 78% * could be deceptive as well, but my intuition is that it isn’t grossly deceptive (i.e. 77% same, 1% more). Ehh, whatever. Either way, it’s worth pointing out that that isn’t really a usefull statistic…

73

I feel that there is a more basic issue here that has not been touched upon in this debate thus far . . . and that is internet regulation. Is this really feasible ? So the RIAA wins the suit against Napster, then what ? They go after the other web-based sharing services one at a time ? Fine, and in the time it takes to take each one down, five more will pop up to take over the publics demand. I think this whole lawsuit is nothing but a drain on American taxpayer money. Pandora is out of the box people, trying to shove her back in is desperate and futile. Despite the rights of artists to their creations, mp3s exist and they are not going to go away. Barring some unforeseen software on the market that can lasso in the mp3 as we know it, this whole lawsuit is pointless. The only possible solution I could see is for the websites and RIAA to pull a “Stephen King” and request donations from users. I am not saying it would be a great deal of money or that even half of the users would contribute - but some would (I know I would) and money is money.

  • NM
74

Quote:

“It doesn’t require rocket science to say you are going to have a very hard time selling something if someone is giving it away,” says Cary Sherman, general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America.

CNote Chris: Of course they’re going to say this, do you expect anything else? They’re the people suing Napster.

Does this mean I can automatically discount all your arguments, since you are a user of Napster and profit from their services? Following your argument, it is obviously impossible for you to say anything relevant on the subject.

To Cary: Ever heard of radio? You guys seem to like it.

Arnold: I don’t profit from anything I’ve downloaded. It’s for personal use.

Stoid:

What is UP with you people? Since when is it a crime to make money? Since when is it a crime to charge for a product or service? Since when is it a crime to profit from one’s labors, creativity, investment?

ST: If someone stops over to use my dictionary, should I then send Merriam-Webster a buck for the use of their book? If I’m not declaring it mine or charge them to use the book than who exactly am I profiting from?

75

No, but there is something in there about copyrights and patents, as it happens. (It’s in favor of them, by the way.)

This is, of course, a silly analogy (I’ve always thought so), since crack is of course illegal, and if it were made legal, the profitability would drop.

It’s really not all that effective. Do you think business owners are expected to sell at a loss? Would you continue running a business operating at a consistent loss?

RTFirefly: I can see the merit in what you describe, and I’d even be willing to be involved in a business venture that sought to either: a) sign artists to release recordings under such a system, available for track-by-track sale, or b) acquire the rights to out-of-print material and sell it that way.

Still, assuming the entire industry adopted such a model, there would remain several questions, such as:

  1. What about people who don’t have the technology to download/listen to mp3s? Are they still required to buy the entire album? Surely no record company in its right mind is going to press 12 separate CD singles. I can see an argument for making track-selection-and-download/record devices available at POS, but if one doesn’t have a computer or mp3 player at home, they’re shut out completely.

  2. What effect would this have on new talent? If people are only buying one or two songs, there’s little profitability in signing new artists, knowing you stand to make only one-sixth the revenue you were off of each after incurring recording, promotion and distribution costs.

76

Oh, and by the way, I wish people would stop making the “Napster=radio” analogy, since it’s pointless and inaccurate for one very simple reason: musicians (or, to be accurate, copyright holders) get paid every time their songs are played on the radio. The money comes from the artist’s performing rights organization (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC or what have you) and never touches the hands of the Big Bad Evil Record Company. In contrast, artists never get paid from having their songs downloaded from Napster.

So, you’re going to have to find a better analogy. Napster is not remotely analogous to radio, not unless they or their user/server base are paying royalties.

77

Ok, so how much was Tom Petty paid for the copy of Damn the Torpedoes that I made off of K-SHE in St. Louis? (They played entire albums without interuption on Sunday nights.) More or less than he would have made if I had bought the album? By listening to that copy I learned that I really enjoy Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. I went to see a Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers concert. The concert ticket was a gift to my best friend from her father for her birthday. Oh, BTW, I played that tape for my best friend too, that’s where she learned she loved Tom Petty’s music. Her father bought 5 concert tickets for my friend’s birthday present. I bought Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers t-shirt and buttons at the concert. I finally bought the CD after I was old enough to have a job and a decent sound system.

Let’s imagine that instead of being the 1980’s this is the year 2000 and I got the whole album off of Napster. Did Tom Petty lose money on that copy of Damn the Torpedoes? Please explain, because I don’t understand.

78

I’m pretty sure that Tom Petty’s publishing company has their performing rights administered through BMI. I don’t know their formula for calculating and distributing royalties, but rest assured he got paid for every single track being played. For just that one time, on that one station, it isn’t a lot of money, but multiplied by a number of tracks over a number of stations, it’s enormous. The Beatles, you’ll remember, got rich off of publishing, not off of record sales. Which is why Paul McCartney is upset over the Michael Jackson thing. It means that whenever a Beatles song is covered or recieves airplay, Michael Jackson makes money.

In that particular instance? Probably less. Depends on his royalty rate. Over the long run? Lots more.

If you downloaded the entire album, then assuming that the original album/CD was paid for and not a boot or a borrowed copy, he only received his cut of the original sale. He didn’t receive a cent for those downloads. If they had been played on the radio, he would have received his BMI royalties.

79

But your not taking into account the other purchases made because of that one copy. Concert tickets, T-shirts, Traveling Wilbury CD’s, other Petty CD’s, that can all be traced back to that copy of Damn the Torpedoes. Quite frankly if my only impression of Tom Petty had been what I saw on MTV at that time, I don’t wouldn’t have thought much of him.:slight_smile:

80

Damn it, I knew I was going to be sucked into this. pldennison–it’s your fault…graahhh!!

OK, the point of that quote is that often enough businesses (and their apologists) say “profit is king. There is no such thing as enough profit. You can’t stop us from doing what we want to make more profit”. To which the obvious reply is, “oh yes we can.”

Now, I’m talking here in terms of dealing with the issue of the RIAA, which has put a stranglehold on the industry. I am ** not ** talking about the use of Napster, per se–it’s just a related issue. The point is that we damn welll have the right to bust up the RIAA, though legislative/judicial means…