The guy that coined the term 'virtual reality' is also a musician. In the February issue of Discover magazine, he makes an argument for Napster. He believes that to rid oneself of Napster-like file sharing requires an end to either computers or democracy (he painted a pretty bleak picture). He feels that all of these energies would be better spent developing 'creative means of compensating musicians', and pursue and unbounded 'creative exploration' that an open Internet allows.
Space Ghost: It may be "fluffy" but it was a statistic produced by Napster, not the RIAA. Just as you assume that the RIAA inflates numbers to help its case, you must also assume that Napster purposefully skews numbers like these for obvious reasons. The numbers could be higher. How are we to know? dylan: The proliferation of digital music equipment has made home recording and the sampling of music nearly on par with large studios with million dollar budgets. We may have poor sound quality from MP3's now, but just 7 years ago, we thought 16 bit recording was the greatest thing ever. Today, if it isn't at least 20 bit, it is a piece of crap in the eyes of recordists and engineers. This is one of those battles that has to find its solution quickly and with this test case. If not, the RIAA will lose billions. If they do, the quality and amount of music lost will me immeasurable. Freak: TAXI helped to produce a study about a year ago on the impact of used CD sales. They found that used CD sales represented less than 2% of total CD sales annually. However, as I pointed our earlier, Napster is responsible (or the downloading of MP3's) for as much as 20 to 25%. That is a VERY significant difference. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
Who conducted the study? Tony Danza? Danny Devito? Marilu Henner? Jeff, you threw out some stats in another thread recently about political beliefs, and BK came up with some totally different numbers. So, I'm not sure what to think about that percentage right now. There could be other studies that show a different trend. Well, one thing to take into account that I can think of off the top of my head is that people who purchased a used CD were actually planning on buying the music. For whatever reason (probably cost), they decided to buy it used. When I buy a used CD, it's because I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to like the particular album, so I buy it used to lessen the investment in case I end up not liking it. In the case of Napster, however, you don't know if the person ever had any intention of buying the music (other than polls). With used CD stores, you have more of a direct link to loss of revenue for the record companies, because the consumer obviously intended to purchase music. Take away used CD stores, and revenues go up--take away Napster, and most people that download probably just don't buy music anyway. ------------------ "cool as hell like email, but still timeless like a letter"
What used CD stores have in common with Napster is that both of them (potentially) take revenues away from record companies. The only people that are concerned with the intricate wordings of the statutes surrounding copyright infringement are the lawyers assigned to defend the record companies. All the record companies and the artists who are swinging from the record companies' nuts are concerned about is their unfounded perception that they are losing revenue. That's it. That's all they care about. Some record company tells Dr. Dre, "Hey Dre, Napster users are stealing your money", and instantly Dr. Dre is out in front of a microphone making a fool of himself along with Metallicash and Art Alexakis and whoever else is denouncing Napster. Nobody is looking at these statutes and court cases but people who are experts in the law. All anyone else cares about is a perceived loss of revenue. Used CD stores are taking their revenue too, but you won't see these same people complaining about that, because they're either too ignorant to make the connection, or realize "protecting their music" is a losing battle. The funny thing is, the big money record companies are the ones that are going to get Napster shut down, and they probably haven't the slightest clue what constitutes "copyright infringement". All they care about is the money they think they're losing. Maybe if they concentrated on putting out good music instead of the crap they traditionally put out, rather than focusing on Napster, people who actually like music would be better off. But of course, that wouldn't be profitable. ------------------ "cool as hell like email, but still timeless like a letter"
You don't see them complaining about Used CD stores because the issue has been decided. I recall when the battle over used CD sales was going on, there were artists who talked about the lost revenues of Used CDs. One country artist (I think it was George Strait, but maybe not) made a point to threaten record stores that sold used CDs alongside new CDs by saying he would try and make sure those stores wouldn't get new copies of his CDs. You fight the battles as they come up, when that battle is over, you move on to the next battle. Are you going to point out that movie theater owners are idiots for not making waves about all the revenue they're losing to television? Why shouldn't they keep making the point, even though the issue was decided about 50 years ago? I don't know where you've been, but record companies make big points about going after every threat to their copyright as much as they can (considering questions of cost effectiveness, etc). They battled Used CD stores and lost. They're battling Napster and other MP3 sites and winning. They battle retail stores and other public places who play music without getting a license. They go after piracy rings. They sent their lawyers after pre-Napster MP3 sites. They take every opportunity to defend their property. Napster and other MP3-related sites just happen to be the current battleground. They aren't going to fight battles that have already been decided. They're going to fight the ones that are currently ongoing. You seem to be saying that the record companies never cared about piracy and defending their copyright until Napster came along, and that just isn't true. What do you want the Record Companies and Artists to do differently? Keep fighting Used CD stores even though the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter instead of fighting the issues that are in the forefront and threatening their copyrights now? Or are you saying that record companies and artists should just forget about their ownership rights and let everybody do whatever they want to with their property? Is that the standard you want set? It's hard to believe that a conservative such as yourself would have such a hostile attitude toward property rights. One of the founding principles of this nation was the right to life, liberty and property. Destroying all that seems to contradict everything we, as Americans, stand for. I don't want to live in a Country where our property rights are meaningless. (And intellectual property is just as important, if not moreso, than physical property.) (I'm also a little surprised that you have such a hostile attitude toward profit. What's worth doing is worth doing for money. Why should a company spend money to bring products to market if they aren't allowed to make money off those products?) ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited February 23, 2001).]
Take away used CD stores and maybe revenues don't go up. When people purchase a used CD, they may well be only willing to purchase that CD at the price that the used CD shop offers. Simple supply and demand tells us that for every increase in price, demand for the product will be lower. You can't say for certainty that any of the people who buy used CDs would buy the CD at full price if the used option were not available. If you're going to make the claim that Napster may not be hurting sales for whatever reason, you need to take into account that used CD stores may not be hurting sales, either. (I don't see what the fascination with used CD stores is anyway. It's completely different than Napster is so many ways, including legally. Used CD sales are an issue that is so far away from the issues surrounding Napster that I don't understand why it has become so ingrained in the topic. There are used CD stores. Record companies don't like it. What does that have to do with the massive illegal copying on Napster? I could just as easily bring up that my cat's breath smells like cat food, and it would be just as relevant to the discussion). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
mrpaige--your attempts to label me are futile. My opinions don't conform to any group. You're much more effective when you stick to arguing the law. What makes me a 'conservative'? That I happen to be anti-abortion? If that makes me a conservative, that says more about society than it does about me. I try to stick with common sense. The law and common sense often conflict with each other, as I'm sure you know. I don't allign myself with statutes, but rather beliefs. My belief in this case is that record companies are pissed that technology has caught up with them. People who use Napster are not 'stealing' any more than someone who purchases a used CD, someone who copies a song off the radio, or someone who copies a CD from a friend are. You can quote statutes all you want, but it won't change that. As I've said before, I know full well that record companies have attacked used CD stores in the past and lost. As I've also said before, that also underscores my point that this entire battle is about lost revenue. The record companies will attack anything that they think hurts their profit. The fact that some little statute may be behind them this time is pure luck. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry when an industry who caters to the lowest common denominator, who often leaves the most talented musicians without work (pretty ironic, when it's supposed to be the MUSIC industry), and who couldn't give 2 sh*ts about putting out a quality product may lose a couple bucks. Boo freakin hoo. I'd look forward to a response that doesn't recite some section of the penal code.
I try to stick with common sense. The law and common sense often conflict with each other, as I'm sure you know. Wait a minute here... Wasn't your whole argument during the post-election Florida mess that the law was clear and we should follow the law as-written rather than worrying about how it should be? ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
1. I never cited any section of the penal code. 2. I assumed you were conservative because 9 times out of 10 that I've noticed, you come down on the coservative side of an issue when it comes up here. It's not just the abortion issue that's been that way. 3. You say downloading from Napster isn't stealing because you don't think it's stealing. Yet the law says it's stealing. The law is what determines what things are. You obviously don't agree with it and don't think that artists and record companies should have property rights that other companies enjoy. That's your business, I suppose. But it will never change the fact that in the eyes of the law, Napster is stealing. (And some of your other examples are legally classified as stealing, too. Copying a song and giving it to your friend is against the law, for example). 4. Music owners go after everyone they can who misuses their product. They have to. In the U.S., the fact that companies have not gone after copyright infringers can be used as evidence for the defence when these companies do act to protect their property. If the record companies don't go after pirates as often as is feasible, they may not win the cases when they do go after pirates. 5. What do you propose the answer to all this is? Let Napster continue to break the law and just look the other way? Let people make all the illegal copies they want as long as they aren't making money (and how do you prove that people aren't making money? If I sell you a t-shirt for $30 and give away a pirate copy of an album with it, am I making money? Technically, I'm just giving it away with a purchase of another item). On another side of the coin, these intellectual property rights protect more than just music. Should I be able to make patented drugs out of my garage as long as I only give them away to people who need them (or again, find a secondary way to make my profit and give the drugs away)? What's the answer? As for the record companies, of course they want to profit from their investment. It's a bad bargain for them if they allow their investment to be given away for free in defiance of the law. Any company or person will move to protect their property and their investments to the extent that the law allows. As well they should because you can't just let rampant theft (and it is theft in the eyes of the law) go on unabated. In the end, the best ending for consumers would be if Napster and the record companies agree to some sort of deal like Napster proposed where Napster pays the licensing fees instead of just being a haven for piracy. But here's a question, if they do make a deal and Napster goes to a fee-based service (let's say a reasonable, flat, per month fee) will Napster users pay the fee and continue to use the service (this time in accordance with the law) or will most people simply find a new place to pirate music? ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I will not argue for people copying copyrighted works. But what about MP3 files that are downloaded legally? They are available on MP3.com (in fact they pormpt you to email them to friends). Or what about someone who records their own music? Aren't these also disseminated by Napster technology? Who's to say that this isn't what Napster was intended for; not for illegal activities? What will happen next? If I email you a copyrighted MP3, will the record industry contact my ISP and tell them to cease-and-desist, since my email attachment went through their server? Regardless, another solution than shutting down Napster is needed. This legal action may make the record companies feel better temporarily, but it resolves nothing. There are too many alternatives. What I think the industry fears most is that the internet changes everything. Middlemen were needed before, but no more. A 14 year old can record a song in her garage and have her song heard around the world instantly, without any record contract. That's awesome. I don't know what the solution to fairly compensating artists will be, but I think that it is exciting that the suits won't rule the scene in the future; it will be between the artists and their fans. Must scare the crap out of them.
Those are legal. It's not the format itself that's the problem. I love MP3.com. There are several artists there who's work I've downloaded that I wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to. If Napster could find a way to ensure to the record companies that the songs available on Napster were only there with permission of the owner of the song, there wouldn't be any problem. The truth of the matter is, though, that the vast majority of what goes on on Napster is illegal copying. Technically, the record companies could go after you, but they wouldn't because it would cost them too much to do so considering the reward. What you're talking about is akin to making a tape copy of a CD for a friend and giving it to him. It's technically illegal, but you're not going to be prosecuted for it. If they could just come to an agreement regarding royalty payments, there wouldn't be any problem. Napster has made the offer, but it doesn't look like most of the record companies are going to accept. But if that meant Napster had to go to a fee-based system, it may not work because many would probably seek out a new place where they can make pirate copies for free. Of course, with all the "noise" of the Internet, having a song available doesn't mean that many people will hear it. Record companies do more than distribute music. They promote and market. These things are often more important than the distribution function. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
shanna--quit trying to attack my character. I will not respond in kind. mrpaige--I will try to respond to a few things. 1. I never cited any section of the penal code. Just giving you a hard time. Relax. I don't even know if I know what 'penal code' means. LOL. 2. I assumed you were conservative because... Just don't care to be labelled, that's all. A lot of times I'm merely trying to give another take on things even though I may agree in the end. 3. You say downloading from Napster isn't stealing because you don't think it's stealing. Yet the law says it's stealing. The law is what determines what things are. I'm merely giving my opinion. The law doesn't recognize gay marriages, but that doesn't eliminate the option of supporting them. Should we just say that the law determines what things are in that case and forget about it? 4. Music owners go after everyone they can who misuses their product. They have to. Fine, no argument there. That doesn't mean we need to feel sorry for them or that they are justified in each case. 5. What do you propose the answer to all this is? Let Napster continue to break the law and just look the other way? Not sure I have an answer. But can you tell me what happens when someone records a CD and gives it to a friend? Are they prosecuted, or are they allowed to 'break the law' and have people 'look the other way'? Napster's just an easier target. Maybe there isn't an answer. As long as the technology exists to copy CDs, I don't see any way around this.
It is fun to say. (It's also one of those terms that sounds dirty, but isn't. Which are always comedy gold. ) ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Originally posted by mrpaige: Those are legal. It's not the format itself that's the problem. I love MP3.com. There are several artists there who's work I've downloaded that I wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to. I know that they are legal. That is my point - that Napster actually has legal uses, so how can they be held accountable for what the users do? Just like ebay servers, email servers, or even the phone company. Illegal activities may occur, but how can you hold the companies accountable? Technically, the record companies could go after you, but they wouldn't because it would cost them too much to do so considering the reward. What you're talking about is akin to making a tape copy of a CD for a friend and giving it to him. It's technically illegal, but you're not going to be prosecuted for it. I wasn't asking about how I would be treated, but what would happen to my ISP. Will all of our emails be checked in the future to make certain there is no copyrighted materials? Will video monitors block illegally copied video (don't laugh, a standard is being established that can do this). Will stereo equipment play only 'authorized' music (also being developed). Of course, with all the "noise" of the Internet, having a song available doesn't mean that many people will hear it. Record companies do more than distribute music. They promote and market. These things are often more important than the distribution function. Don't think of the Internet as it is now. I already feel like the Internet has been around forever, but I first used it only 7 years ago (and it was a different animal then - anyone remember Archie? ). The Net will continue to evolve rapidly, the noise will dissapate, and I could see where 'MP3.coms' begin to displace the record companies. You wake up to your web-enabled clock/radio, an MP3.com bot tells the radio to play a song released today by your favorite artist...'Would you like to download this song to your media server for $1?'...Thank You. We also recommend for you...
I know that they are legal. That is my point - that Napster actually has legal uses, so how can they be held accountable for what the users do? Just like ebay servers, email servers, or even the phone company. Illegal activities may occur, but how can you hold the companies accountable? If any of these companies knowingly and willfully allow those activities to occur, I believe they can be held liable. The difference is that most of the above companies make some effort to assure that doesn't occur -- ebay has people who look for illegal items, email companies try to block spam, etc. Think of it this way. If you opened your house to drug dealers and drug addicts as a place to meet and buy/sell their products, do you think you should be partially liable? It all comes down to this: they are trying to profit from what they know to be primarily an illegal activity. Even from a common-sense standpoint, that can't be allowed. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
New article: RIAA: New evidence shows Napster hurt CD sales - - - - - - - - - - - - By Associated Press Feb. 26, 2001 | LOS ANGELES -- Recording industry officials have brought forth new evidence in their attempt to prove that Napster, the Internet music-swapping service, has cut into their business. Shipments of CD singles sank by 39 percent last year, according to data released by the Recording Industry Association of America. "Napster hurt record sales," said RIAA president Hilary Rosen. In particular, Rosen pointed to the drop in the sales of singles, once the format that fueled the music industry, as evidence of Napster's affect. The industry released the figures after a federal court ruled this month that the service helped users to violate music copyright laws. Financial penalties and an injunction have placed the future of the popular service in question. Napster chief executive Hank Barry said the association is twisting the data to support the recording industry's claim that they have suffered "irreparable harm" at the hands of Napster users. "In order to argue we've done irreparable harm, it would be great if there were some irreparable harm to show," he said. "We haven't seen a credible survey yet that suggests Napster is hurting CD sales." Last week, music executives shook off Napster's offer to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit, saying it didn't offer a viable business model and failed to address concerns over the security of online music. Under the proposal, Napster offered $150 million annually for five years to Sony, Warner, BMG, EMI and Universal. An additional $50 million would go to independent labels in each of those five years. The money would come from a fee-based service that Napster would like to launch if given approval from the record companies to use their songs. Record industry executives called Napster's offer inadequate for an industry with annual revenues of $40 billion. Some experts trace the drop in the sale of singles back to the record companies themselves. Industry watchers say that record companies have cut production of an unprofitable product that no longer serves the needs of the industry. Singles, a mainstay of the industry in the 1950s and 60s, have fallen out of favor as a tool to inflate sales figures and influence radio programming, said Roy Lott, president of EMI Group's Capitol label. Even so, Napster is the "prime culprit" for the drop in sales, he said. Industry analysts said the drop in sales can be attributed to a number of factors, including economic factors and a weak year for music releases. "Napster alone doesn't seem like a fair alibi," said Michael Nathanson, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "It's a combination of things. Softness in consumer spending. The hit titles were for such a narrow (audience) that it was a very thin year, and lastly, the Napster factor. You can't put your finger on it." "To be honest, it wasn't a great music year," said Andreas Schmidt, chief of the e-commerce group at Bertelsmann, which has a financial stake in Napster. "There were some isolated events, but we didn't put that much good stuff out." I would add one more possible explanation for the drop in CD singles. One could argue that sales of CD singles are down because potential consumers, after hearing a song they like, go on Napster, download other songs by the same artist and decide to buy the entire CD rather than the single. It's just a theory. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
If the labels didn't want people to be able to get singles without paying, why would they release them to radio? [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited February 26, 2001).]
Because the benefits of having a song on the radio outweighs the fact that some people can tape songs off the radio if they want to. The Betamax ruling makes such personal taping off the radio legal, and artists do get paid royalities for their songs when they are played on the radio. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
mrpaige is relentless! I understand why they do it, but they are basically complaining in this article that sales are down for things that they authorize anybody to have for free by releasing them to radio.
I would like to personally thank everyone for "blowing-up" (responding to) my post! I do believe this is the first post I have had with 100+ responses...as long as someone responds right after me... I love it I love it I love it rH ------------------ The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love! Come and chat with us on game nights in CC.net chat!
