Napster will be shut down

Great Debates
121

Pldennison - I find you more argumentative than anything, but as long as you’re sticking to the facts (which you seem to have done so far), that’s okay. What’s not okay is missing the point I was trying to make (one of three, actually).

In a civil case, it’s not enough to simply cite a violation of the law; the plaintiff has to prove to a certain extent (preponderance of evidence) that there was actual harm caused. In other words, the RIAA would have to show tangible evidence of lost record sales as a direct result of Napster’s services. You can’t just throw the book and put your feet up. That’s not how a lawsuit works.

So the first step for the RIAA would be to prove that Napster violated copyrights. Then they’d have to present their evidence. And then it would be weighed against any evidence the defendants brought up. The ruling would depend on which side had stronger evidence, and how much stronger it was. If Napster proves convincingly that no harm was done (which would be pretty easy to do, IMHO), they win the case, no penalty. If they totally blow the case but the RIAA has nothing but the law, the appropriate penalty is nominal damages (usually $1; the same award anyone who suffers “pain and suffering” and nothing else would receive). They’d have to present one hell of a case to justify shutting down the service entirely.

Anyway, that’s my argument, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I aint’ budgin’. Oh, and anyone wants to respond to the other two points I made, be my guest.

122

If I am argumentative, DKW, it is because this is an issue about which I feel strongly. We all have our pet issues. As I told someone in an e-mail, having invested much of my time, energy, resources and money over the years in writing, performing, recording and distributing music, if I discovered that someone I’ve never met was giving it away free to any taker, I’d be furious.

To the extent that the lawsuit is concerned, I concede your points, except to note that it is well within the right of the government to dissolve an entity which serves no purpose other than contributing to violation of copyright law.

My concern is, does Napster have any legitimate purpose aside from allowing for unlawful distribution of copyrighted material? As it is set up, no. There is no way for an artist who does not want their material distributed for free to opt out. Artists are not compensated for the downloads of their material. If those two conditions were met, I’d have no problem with it, as a musician and a copyright holder.

There are lots of ways to spin the numbers, and each side is going to spin them in a way advantageous to their argument. Napster proponents can say, “Music sales are up 8%,” while the RIAA can say, “They’d be up 10% if not for Naspter.” A survey can say, “Since the inception of Napster, 78% of music buyers are buying more or the same amount of music as before.” Or it can say, “Since the inception of Napster, 22% of music buyers have begun buying less music.”

I also question the continued confusion of some posters between price fixing and price gouging. To me, they aren’t at all the same thing. I’ve been buying CDs for about 13 years now, and to my perception, the prices have remained relatively static, having gone up only a dollar or two in 13 years. That’s not too bad, AFAIK.

123

Mojo: I understand your point about the prices being too high to pay for it…BUT…theft is one thing that causes a RISE in price, because they have to make up for the losses somehow.

124

RIAA does not have to prove that they are currently being damaged by napster. Napster is cutting into the online market that record companies may want to exploit some day. I believe that this has some precedent. I have heard that Playboy went after people who were distributing their pictures on the internet. One of the argument was that these people were getting into a market that Playboy may have wanted to exploit in the future.

125

The RIAA may not have to prove that it was harmed by Napster, but they seemed to be already harmed by trying to attack Napster, between the government judgment against them, and the slowing down of record sales since this case become the focus of media attention.

126

I just have one simple question…

If Napster and “non-commercial file sharing” hurts album sales so badly, how are artists still able to go multi-platinum?

Take Kid-Rock, for example… If you do a search on Napster for the song “Bawitaba”, you will find at least 100 results at any given time. It is a very popular song.

Anyway, Devil Without a Cause still went multiplatinum (2million+ albums sold).

So what I want to know is this:

If Napster is such a threat to artists, how is is that artists still sell millions of albums?

Would they have sold more if “non-commercial file sharing” didn’t exist?
Granted, there are a lot of Napster members, but think about it…say there are 10,000 members of Napster.

If Kid Rock sold (hypothetically) 7,143,216 records, does it stand to reason that he would have sold 7,153,216 records if “NCFS” didn’t exist? If so, what’s the big deal?
$15x10,000= $150,000 right?
and
15x7,000,000=105,000,000 right?

(Let me slide on the divisions of profits, okay? I know that 100% of the cost of a CD doesn’t go to the artist and or recording company or whatever, and it’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.)

Anyway, even IF every single member of Napster does not buy the album, it only makes a small difference.
And many members of Napster will preview the songs of an artist before purchasing an album.

I elect to think that Napster is actually aiding the sales of CD’s, and that it is not hurting as much as the whiny record company people and hugely successful artists seem to think.

I am not stating my position, I am just looking to gather some info and see if I can’t expand my outlook.
Thanks.

127

Lexicon:

If you had $1,000, and I decided that I wanted £10 of it, you’d be happy? You’d just sit back and let me take it? Of course not (yes, I know it’s a different order of magnitude, but not many artists sell 7,000,000 units either).

Where would you draw the line? Stealing 1% of your sales is okay, but 10% is wrong? How do you justify that line?

The point is, if stealing is wrong, then it’s wrong regardless of how much is stolen. Sure, it may be a very, very minor crime, but it’s still a crime.

Disclaimer (again): since this is a fairly sensitive issue, I’ll reiterate: I’m not calling Napster users evil crime lords, or claiming a whiter-that-white history myself. I’m merely pointing out that taking something in a manner not approved by the producer, thereby denying him or her what they’re asking for, is wrong.

128

So wait a second. If I rip an MP3 file off a CD, put it on a diskette (it’s a short file) and mail it to a friend, could the recording artist sue Canada Post?

129

I repeat, in answer to the Canada Post question:

"My concern is, does Napster have any legitimate purpose aside from allowing for unlawful distribution of copyrighted material? As it is set up, no. There is no way for an artist who does not want their material distributed for free to opt out. Artists are not compensated for the downloads of their material. If those two conditions were met, I’d have no problem with it, as a musician and a copyright holder. "

Canada Post obviously has a purpose beyond that which you describe.

I have to ask, what’s with your sudden and apparent lack of regard for the rights of artists and copyright holders?

130

I have a bunch of cassette tapes that I can’t play because my player is broken. Is it illegal or immoral for me to use napster to download songs on these tapes and listen to them as long as I still own the cassettes?

131

Mattk, buddy, I’m not trying to defend Napster.
I’m trying to learn a little bit here, that’s all.

And you’re absolutely right, theft is theft, the amount is beside the point. That’s not what I’m talking about.

What I’m getting at is that I elect to believe that Napster does more good than harm.

What I’m trying to say is that popular artists are going to sell millions of records regardles of the “digital revoloution”.

I’m not trying to justify my use of Napster, I am trying to ask a simple question…
Does non-commercial file sharing (“NCFS”) really take money from the hard working artists who deserve it?

I really don’t think it does, anymore than the radio does. In fact, I believe that CD sales are only helped by NCFS.

Further, many people don’t realize that we as consumers need to establish a right to try things before we purchase them.

Think about this:
I saw a CD. I had heard about them, and think that I might like their stuff. I am at Best Buy, and what the hell, I decide to pick it up. Get to my car, turns out it sucks. I really don’t like it.
Here’s the rub: Even though I just bought it 5 minutes ago, I can’t return it for a refund. Now I’m stuck with a CD that sucks. I can sell it to a place that buys and sells CD’s, but for a fraction of what I paid for it. This is intolerable. But because of the advent of CD burners, no company will let you return opened CD’s or software for a refund. And that sucks. But what can you do?
You don’t have to take it, you can preview the band and then buy the CD if you like it.

Remember when places would let you preview a CD before you bought it? That was cool. Very few (if any) places do this anymore, and I wonder why. Anybody know?

You are so right, Mattk, people who try to justify their theft by maintaining that they are “only stealing a little bit” are typically ignorant and misguided.

What I was trying to illustrate with my poor analogies was that even if every user of napster didn’t buy a CD from a multiplatinum artist, it would not leave the artist starving and homeless. This in no way justifies what is going on, but I am only pointing out that the supposed effects of NCFS are not as cataclysmic as the RIAA seems to want everyone to believe.
Further, not every user of Napster stops buying CD’s. So in the above example, it’s even less of a problem. Though still a problem.

Anyway, the point is that although Napster is most definitely violating various copyright laws in it’s current form, I believe that it would be unlawful to summarily shut them down.

The service needs to make some changes, granted. But the fact remains that Digital files are the future of personal music. The recording industry needs to improvise, adapt and overcome, and find a way to exploit this new market, so the can continue to screw the consumer on a grand scale like they are today.

When you boil it down, it’s not about who didn’t get paid. It’s not about not wanting to buy a CD. It’s not about copyrights and lawyers.
It’s about we music lovers rising up and telling the recording industry to dismount. It’s about wanting to be able to get one song that we like, without having to buy the whole $15-20 dollar CD.
It’s about being able to try out a product before you buy it.
It’s about progress.

If Napster charged me $20 a month to use the service I would pay it. If Napster charged me $40 a month to use it I would pay it. So would a lot of people.
If a record company charged people a similar fee for the same service and paid royalties to the artist per download,
they could take advantage of this progress.

You can’t fight progress, and this is the future of music.

132

From Pldennison:

capacitor:

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.

pldennison:

Just for the sake of argument, can you name them?

My reply:

“Jeremy”–Pearl Jam
“Black”–also by Pearl Jam
“Santa Monica”–Everclear
“Don’t Speak”–No Doubt
“Into the Groove”–Madonna (only get it as 12 inch, which is not counted in hot 100)

The sixth one slips my mind right now.
"
"

133

Radio pays royalty fees, and the radio can’t necessarly play any music it feels to.

You’re absolutely right. But We should we establish thoughs rights via. an illegal means?

Not only this, but napster explicitly says that downloading or sharing an mp3 that you don’t own the rights to, is against it’s terms and services. So even if the right to “try before you buy” exists in theory it doesn’t exist according to napster, and accordingly is not a defense for napster.

If you go to a movie theather or eat a meal you don’t like, do you have the right to a refund?

For one, don’t buy your CD’s at best buy. There are a number of stores (borders books and music for instance) that allows you to preview the whole CD.

It might just be your area, I guess. Another possiblity is to look up the band, often they have samples of the other songs, or ask your friends to borrow their copy. Consumer rights only extend so far as to a product doing what it claimed to do. A Cd claims to make music, nothing more. If you don’t like the music you should have done your research better.

Personaly, I tend to agree with you. However I am dead set against napster as a business model, which it seems they are trying to make themselves into. The idea that someone could make a profit off of a service that trades other peoples work pisses me off. Napster has no right to make any money off of what they are doing what so ever. As soon as they try, I’ll take arms against them.
In the mean time shrug I’m fine with it.

True, but part of the problem the RIAA is worried about is there is a whole generation growing up with the ablity to get free music. Most of us allready have a sort of ethic that if we listen to it and like it we should give somthing back. What’s likely to happen among the younger generation is an idea that it’s their right to take any music they want. This is what’s detrimental to the RIAA. The future, not the present.

Hell, I don’t mind. So long as they don’t make a ** profit ** out of violating those copyright laws.

It’s about making a mountain out of a mole hill. (sorry, couldn’t help myself on that one =)

Bingo, that’s my problem right there. Napster making any kind of money off of other peoples products, without the owners permision, is dead wrong.

I mentioned this in a differnt thread, but the problem is this:

For anyone to come up with a workable system where the author gets paid they have to be the distributor. Mp3s, and digital technology is completly (close enough to be completly anyways) in the hands of the consumer. The consumer IS the distributor. This is a unique occurance in our capitalistic economy =] For any viable solution the authors/owners of the music are going to have to find a way to remove the ablity of distribution that the consumer currently has.

I don’t think it’s going to happen.

And I don’t know what’s going to happen because of this.

134

No one or no companay can wrest control of distribution from the consumer anymore. The consumer is the one group that really drives the economy. It is now their turn for once to lead the negotiation of terms of distribution, and the price of such distribution. The RIAA can sue all the tools they want, but they will never enforce ignorance on the people again. All companies will ultimately have to negotiate with their potential consumers about the means of distributing their product, because if they try to enact iron-fist control, they will eventually lose control.