A library has to purchase the book or have it donated. THey are not allowed to make copies of a book and distribute it themselves. I’m allowed to purchase a book, computer game, musical cd, or movie and allow others to borrow it. I’m not allowed to make copies of these things and distribute it.
Napster on the other hand is a place where copies are distributed without permission. It isn’t like letting a friend borrow a book. It is like making a photocopy of the book and giving it to them. Unfair to the publisher and author. Whether or not the person would have paid money for the product does not matter.
I never used Napster to get my mp3s. Either my friends would send me them or I’d use a different program, but unlike Napster, it is one that would be nearly impossible to shut down completely.
The problem that I have with the music industry is this: I love music, whether listening to it or making it. But my problem is that the only places I can get music (and they’re an hour away from where I live) charge a LOT of money for CDs. I just bought my boyfriend a Guster CD. They’re not a very very very popular band, but it still cost me almost 20 bucks. I wanted Metallica’s S&M CD because Enter Sandman and No Leaf Clover were on it, but I’m not shelling out 40 dollars for two songs. If the artist actually received a good chunk of the money, I might do it…but they don’t.
Most of the mp3s I’ve gotten I ended up buying the CD within six months. Some mp3s I got I deleted within a week because I realized that I actually hated them. (Therefore saving me money…had I gone and bought the CD it would have been worthless.)
I could drive for 2 hours to places that have used and low-priced CDs. But I don’t have THAT much money for gas, and I don’t have very many days free that I could drive 4 fours just to save 5 dollars on a CD.
I know I’ve done illegal stuff. But I’m willing to wager that half the mp3s I own now, I also own on CD.
In fact, I know it’s true.
And the RIAA can go to Hell.
Napster has won a temporary stay on the judges orders, at least until it goes to an appeal trial. And guess what? Either Napster wins the appeal and lives forever or the RIAA loses thousands of customers and millions of dollars.
As for myself, I have bought 4 cds since I started using Napster because I liked some of the songs I heard from there. Never would have bought them if I didn’t hear it.
Any libraries I’ve seen that had rock at all, almost all of it was at least a decade old. If any US library has more than a token selection of currently or recently popular music (i.e. within past 2 years) to check out, I’ve never heard of it.
Movies are another story - my current library has a pretty good selection of movies right up to ones that were popular a year or so ago. That seems to be fairly common practice.
But all the same, it has a similar effect, given the different ways we use books and recorded music.
The library buys one copy of a novel, and thousands of people have access to that copy. Dozens of them read it for free - reading it as much as they’ll ever want to, without paying a blessed cent.
The difference with music is in usage patterns. We don’t tend to listen to a song just once, then never listen to it again. Hell, it takes me a dozen listenings to decide if I like a song, most of the time. Due to this difference in usage patterns, I claim that, despite the technicalities, a quality library is, for books, very like what Napster is to music.
You know what cracks me up?
People saying it’s a protest against the establishment, a snub at the companies for overcharging for cds?
Da’hell?
That’s like organizing a boycott of a store for some reason, but stealing stuff from them when they aren’t looking.
You know what? If a cd is too expensive, don’t but it. But don’t try and justify stealing it.
You know what causes the rise in prices…well, one thing, anyway: STEALING. That’s right, Shrinkage. Because a place of business has to raise prices to make up for the lost revenue on stolen goods.
Trust me, I work in retail, and they drum this into us all the time.
To Arnold, and other RIAA sympathizers: What do you think of the government report that revealed that the record industry gouged customers to the tune of $1 billion? As I said before, if the RIAA goes ahead with the lawsuit, I hope that the Napster lawyers turn it into the anti-trust trial of the robbers. I can count a least six instances of songs that would be platinum-sellers and hit number one on
The Billboard Hot 100, except for the fact that the record companies wouldn’t sell singles. Groups such as no Doubt had their careers stalled because of the actions of the record companies. And you still support them?
Also, ask yourself this: What if the record companies were in control of the software industry? Would we have all this freeware/shareware products to choose from? Would the salaries of the programmers, analysts and system administrators be as high as it is now, except for a precious few? Would you be able to freelance, moving from company to company, solving problems where and when needed? Would we be able to work for a company we own? I don’t think so.
Just for the record, I’ve used Napster’s services pretty extensively and never once felt that I was “stealing” anything (if they’re giving it to me of their own will, it’s not stealing, right?). However, the RIAA’s arguments, however spurious they may sound, were all valid. I vehemently oppose the ruling simply because I do not believe that the record industry made a strong enough case to warrant it. IMHO (this is coming off my admittedly limited knowledge of civil law), they’d have to show to a certain extent, i.e. preponderance of evidence, that Napster had directly hurt music sales, something which has not been supported by any recent statistics.
Instead of rehashing that argument, however, I’d like to point out a few related issues which haven’t come up yet:
Did it have to come down to a full-bore lawsuit? The RIAA is alienating millions of music fans, and the backlash has already begun. And it’s a pyrrhic victory at best, now that services like Gnutella are available (which any search engine can find the URL to in five seconds). It would have been far better to simply negotiate with Napster. Maybe ban songs from the past five years or songs on the current top 40. Or charge a per-user registration fee. Or require the artists’ consent before using their songs. I find it impossible to believe that Napster would be blind to compromise.
My philosophy on civil torts (and just about any “immoral” activity) is that if it does more good than harm, let it be…or better yet, USE it to your advantage. Napster has given visibility to a lot of new or relatively unknown artists. Which translates to greater demand for their songs, which translates to greater CD sales. Customers, artists, AND record companies benefit. Do the concerns of a tiny handful of super-rich (and in some cases no longer working) performers outweigh all the good things Napster has done?
Where is it written that artists are owed a living? Way I see it, if folks are willing to pay, they’ll pay, and if not, you’re just out of luck. That’s how a free market works, and I fail to see why “intellectual property” should have any special exemptions. I’ve “stolen intellectual property” from Borders Books and Music countless times. Why don’t they throw me out? Because there are times when I do buy something, which I can hardly do if I’m banned from the place. I pay up when I feel it’s worth it, as does everyone else who goes to Borders. Read any stories about the impending bankruptcy of the franchise lately?
The library analogy doesn’t stand up - in most countries the writer is compensated by Public Lending Right, a payment per estimated number of books in public libraries.
My only two questions are: 1) Do you ever shop online? If you search several sites (CDNOW, Amazon, Buy.co, 800.com, etc.) you can usually find the titles you want for far less than list, and shipping is negligible; and 2) Isn’t that a way of saying, “I’m helping the artists by seeing that they get nothing rather than the percentage they would get, no matter how small”?
RTFirefly:Any libraries I’ve seen that had rock at all, almost all of it was at least a decade old. If any US library has more than a token selection of currently or recently popular music (i.e. within past 2 years) to check out, I’ve never heard of it.
[/quote]
I haven’t checked out the local system here in Fairfax County yet, but both the Cleveland Public Library and the Cuyahoga County Public Library system has enormous collections of current popular music at nearly every branch. I’m talking new releases as well as catalog titles.
capacitor:
Just for the sake of argument, can you name them?
Who is “they”? Certainly not the rightful owner of the property. Neither Napster nor the person who is providing the mp3 has the legal right to duplicate and redistribute that material.
Primaflora, you’re going to have to explain to me what a Public Lending Right is, and who makes the payment. I apologize for my ignorance (and you’re welcome to help fight it - that’s what this place is all about!), but this is the first I’ve heard of such a thing.
I have an uneasy feeling that the US doesn’t have this but IMO they damned well should! OK in the UK, NZ and Australia a writer is compensated for the use of their books in libraries. You need to have a certain number of books in libraries across the country (you can’t just print off a book and get paid), the book must have an ISBN number and you can’t get paid for books with several contributors.
In NZ and Australia the government gives a certain capped amount to an organisation (the Arts Council which also administers grants) and it is distributed amongst writers on a yearly basis. We then all whinge because it isn’t enough ;). Originally it was supposed to compensate writers and help them achieve a living wage. This is less of an issue in a country the size of the US but given the population densities of NZ and Australia it is a relatively fair way to support struggling writers.
I know there are still countries where writers are lobbying for this system but I am not up to speed on whether or not the US does it or not.
It isn’t illegal in the United States, either. What is illegal is making copies of music and distributing it to millions of anonymous people who aren’t paying for it. Unless you’re the copyright owner. Then you can do whatever you bloody well want with it. I’d be absolutely flabbergasted if you didn’t understand the difference.
Primaflora, you’re right - this isn’t done in the US; there’s no taxpayer-subsidized fund here from which authors are compensated for library use of their works. (At first I wasn’t sure if you were talking about a government-administered program, or about some sort of standard contractual thing between authors and publishers.)
So I guess my analogy is more to the point in some parts of the world than in others…
This is not my only argument as you should know if you’ve been reading this thread. I buy CDs now and I’m not ecstatic about the price- I’d be happier and buy more if they were cheaper. There’s many items I buy and wish were cheaper (car insurance in DC being one)- You don’t have to be content with the price in order to buy something. Their willingness to gouge shows me that they really don’t give a fuck about me. And by ordering CDs from different sources (like 800.com) it takes approx a week and you’re stuck with separate shipping costs.
I don’t use Napster to download albums without buying them- I use it to preview music that I’m interested in buying. I have yet to hear the radio play a Jurrasic 5 song- I heard about them by word of mouth, checked out some songs on Napster, and bought the album. That’s been my S.O.P. for a while. Since Napster, I haven’t been stuck with a one-hit-wonder CD like I had been in the past. If you want to consider DLing a song, listening to it, deciding I’m not going to buy the album because it sucks and deleting the file stealing then I guess I’m a thief. I sleep pretty well at night.
If they’re providing it to a service whose purpose is to distribute files, of course they’re distributing it. Unless, of course, you want to split semantic hairs to the point where all words are meaningless. If I take a copyrighted piece of writing, stick it on a Xerox machine, and tell all my friends where they can find it and make a copy for free, I think we can conidently say I am contributing to copyright violation.
It’s no wonder artisans need publicly funded dormitories in your scheme of thinking, matt, if you believe they should not receive just compensation for their works.