Napster is dead but the dream lives on.
September 4, 2001 11:40 PM Subscribe
Napster is dead but the dream lives on. After two years of hard fighting, RIAA managed to kill Napster -- and now at least four comparable systems have appeared, all of which will be much harder to either control or to kill off. An RIAA rep acknowledges the problem. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
And yet I like Audiogalaxy WAY more than I ever liked Napster. Such is its power and strange beauty and superior downloading ability.
posted by frenetic at 12:34 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by frenetic at 12:34 AM on September 5, 2001
I like Audiogalaxy too, having refused the spyware. But I do miss the chat option--I met some neat folks on napster. (The resume feature and ability to stack downloads rocks, however.) And the thrill of being able to grab music out of the ether, some you couldn't get any other way, was exhilarating when all of this started. Now I expect it.
posted by aflakete at 1:16 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by aflakete at 1:16 AM on September 5, 2001
and i like morpheus better, file sharing is just becoming more popular, and while they turn their backs to fight napster, others have refined the idea and made it 100 times better, right behind their backs - thank you napster.
posted by semper at 1:18 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by semper at 1:18 AM on September 5, 2001
And I'm happy with LimeWire. I can't believe music execs thought any of us would pay their subscription fees.
posted by swerve at 1:44 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by swerve at 1:44 AM on September 5, 2001
We're all going to miss out on a lot of new music in the not too distant future if the copyright theft laws aren't strengthened. Isn't anyone concerned about this?
posted by MarkC at 2:43 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by MarkC at 2:43 AM on September 5, 2001
MarkC: please explain...how will not strengthening the copyright theft laws (they aren't strong enough already?) cause us to miss out on new music? What, musicians will just stop writing music altogether because of Gnutella et al?
I think the future with file-sharing means that the hierarchical, almost feudal structure of major record labels will be struck a blow from no longer being able to completely control the distribution (including payola) and price of music. Likewise, some musicians who've gotten enormously rich- perhaps undeservedly so, perhaps not- in that system might see their record sales drop precipitously. But real musicians will always write terrific music, whether living in near poverty or in the lap of luxury, from Mozart to Dave Matthews Band, because real musicians must write and perform music- it's what they do!
I'm not advocating a return to the time when musicians were but hired help for the aristocracy, and those musicians whose work thrills people across the country and around the world do deserve to be well compensated. However, those who are driven from within to follow their Muse will do so regardless of whether they stay at the Motel 6 or the Four Seasons. Besides- some of the very best music out there is not from the stadium-filling pre-packaged pop and rock millionaires but from people whose musical living, such as it is, is primarily made performing shows in small to mid-sized venues for a devoted fanbase.
posted by hincandenza at 3:11 AM on September 5, 2001
I was never convinced that Napster actually led to a decrease in record sales anyway. Most of the stuff I downloaded from Napster I'd never have considered buying. I just got an urge to hear a song a couple of times then I'd delete it.
I think many people used it to download a record they'd heard on the radio then if they really liked it they'd buy the album. Keeping music on your PC is still too inconvenient for most people and not everyone wants to go mucking about with CD-RW.
posted by Summer at 4:04 AM on September 5, 2001
I think many people used it to download a record they'd heard on the radio then if they really liked it they'd buy the album. Keeping music on your PC is still too inconvenient for most people and not everyone wants to go mucking about with CD-RW.
posted by Summer at 4:04 AM on September 5, 2001
Agreed, Summer. I'd even take it one step further: listening to napstered tunes makes me want to buy a new band's nicely packaged CD (it happened with Sigur Ros). I think file sharing, by broadening musical horizons for free and making music exciting again, will ultimately help increase record sales.
posted by muckster at 4:30 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by muckster at 4:30 AM on September 5, 2001
MarkC: please explain...how will not strengthening the copyright theft laws (they aren't strong enough already?) cause us to miss out on new music? What, musicians will just stop writing music altogether because of Gnutella et al?
How many unsigned bands do you listen to? And how many of those are not local?
Without a record contract, a band is unlikely to find an audience. You can hardly expect every musician to also be a business man capable of producing, marketing, distributing, and selling his music. And it is necessary to think of producing music in the same way as producing anything else if you want to make a comfortable living from your work and if you want people you'll never meet in person to hear it.
After money has been invested promoting the band, if the new fans then download the music illegally, the record companies are not going to be around for much longer. And the reason most people are listening to the music in the first place is largely due to the efforts of those record companies. If people are not willing to search for good new music now, and record companies wouldn't exist if they were, why do you think this would change? If the record companies die, so does new music.
posted by MarkC at 4:47 AM on September 5, 2001
How many unsigned bands do you listen to? And how many of those are not local?
Without a record contract, a band is unlikely to find an audience. You can hardly expect every musician to also be a business man capable of producing, marketing, distributing, and selling his music. And it is necessary to think of producing music in the same way as producing anything else if you want to make a comfortable living from your work and if you want people you'll never meet in person to hear it.
After money has been invested promoting the band, if the new fans then download the music illegally, the record companies are not going to be around for much longer. And the reason most people are listening to the music in the first place is largely due to the efforts of those record companies. If people are not willing to search for good new music now, and record companies wouldn't exist if they were, why do you think this would change? If the record companies die, so does new music.
posted by MarkC at 4:47 AM on September 5, 2001
I think file sharing, by broadening musical horizons for free and making music exciting again, will ultimately help increase record sales.
Too right. MTV and most commercial radio stations play nothing but the same selected pop songs over and over. If anything's killing music it's that. Any channel that opens the whole thing up has to be good. I'm waiting for the new Sex Pistols to become a cult hit on the Internet before taking over the world. Could happen.
posted by Summer at 5:01 AM on September 5, 2001
Too right. MTV and most commercial radio stations play nothing but the same selected pop songs over and over. If anything's killing music it's that. Any channel that opens the whole thing up has to be good. I'm waiting for the new Sex Pistols to become a cult hit on the Internet before taking over the world. Could happen.
posted by Summer at 5:01 AM on September 5, 2001
If the record companies die, so does new music
How many record companies are going to die if the laws on copyright theft are tightened? How are you going to enforce tighter laws when the ones currently in place can't be enforced?
Without a record contract, you are correct, a band is unlikely to find an audience unless they can find another way of getting heard. Advertising companies have been trying to find a way to replicate the 'word of mouth' effect for years but the truth is they have never been able to. It happens because like minded people naturally tell each other about cool stuff, like music for instance. Get your stuff out there and if enough people like it you'll find the record companies coming to you. Surely this way you stand a better chance than hoping the A&R man will like your set/demo tape on that particular day.
If P2P music sharing really takes off, record companies will have to listen to their consumers instead of us having to listen to what they decide. Pre-packaged, off-the shelf artists will still have a place, but maybe record companies will think about what their customers are listening to before (de)signing the next N'Sync or Spice Girls.
posted by Markb at 5:25 AM on September 5, 2001
How many record companies are going to die if the laws on copyright theft are tightened? How are you going to enforce tighter laws when the ones currently in place can't be enforced?
Without a record contract, you are correct, a band is unlikely to find an audience unless they can find another way of getting heard. Advertising companies have been trying to find a way to replicate the 'word of mouth' effect for years but the truth is they have never been able to. It happens because like minded people naturally tell each other about cool stuff, like music for instance. Get your stuff out there and if enough people like it you'll find the record companies coming to you. Surely this way you stand a better chance than hoping the A&R man will like your set/demo tape on that particular day.
If P2P music sharing really takes off, record companies will have to listen to their consumers instead of us having to listen to what they decide. Pre-packaged, off-the shelf artists will still have a place, but maybe record companies will think about what their customers are listening to before (de)signing the next N'Sync or Spice Girls.
posted by Markb at 5:25 AM on September 5, 2001
"the dream lives on"
I'm glad Napster is gone. Only immature fools expect something for nothing and feel "ripped off" when they have to pay. But it would be nice to inject more competition into the music industry.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:35 AM on September 5, 2001
I'm glad Napster is gone. Only immature fools expect something for nothing and feel "ripped off" when they have to pay. But it would be nice to inject more competition into the music industry.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:35 AM on September 5, 2001
How many record companies are going to die if the laws on copyright theft are tightened?
When sites like Napster become a little more accessible and less intimidating for people with limited computer experience, I think the record companies will see a big drop in business. People won't pay for something they can get for free. ...except for bottled water.
How are you going to enforce tighter laws when the ones currently in place can't be enforced?
They can be enforced -- see Napster. I just think it's a matter of holding ISPs responsible for the material on their webservers.
Also, when users see there is a real possibility of being prosecuted, they won't be so willing to trade music openly.
posted by MarkC at 6:07 AM on September 5, 2001
When sites like Napster become a little more accessible and less intimidating for people with limited computer experience, I think the record companies will see a big drop in business. People won't pay for something they can get for free. ...except for bottled water.
How are you going to enforce tighter laws when the ones currently in place can't be enforced?
They can be enforced -- see Napster. I just think it's a matter of holding ISPs responsible for the material on their webservers.
Also, when users see there is a real possibility of being prosecuted, they won't be so willing to trade music openly.
posted by MarkC at 6:07 AM on September 5, 2001
> Without a record contract, a band is unlikely to find an
> audience.
Build a local audience, and put your music on your web site so folks in Reykjavik and Hong Kong can hear you.
> You can hardly expect every musician to also be a
> business man capable of producing, marketing,
> distributing, and selling his music. And it is necessary to
> think of producing music in the same way as producing
> anything else if you want to make a comfortable living
> from your work and if you want people you'll never meet
> in person to hear it.
But how simple! Stop wanting that.
Most of the musicians who ever lived were heard by the people they played for in person. Period, full stop. What was good enough for the troubadours of the high Middle Ages is plenty good enough for bands today. Get a day job and keep your art pure.
posted by jfuller at 6:21 AM on September 5, 2001
> audience.
Build a local audience, and put your music on your web site so folks in Reykjavik and Hong Kong can hear you.
> You can hardly expect every musician to also be a
> business man capable of producing, marketing,
> distributing, and selling his music. And it is necessary to
> think of producing music in the same way as producing
> anything else if you want to make a comfortable living
> from your work and if you want people you'll never meet
> in person to hear it.
But how simple! Stop wanting that.
Most of the musicians who ever lived were heard by the people they played for in person. Period, full stop. What was good enough for the troubadours of the high Middle Ages is plenty good enough for bands today. Get a day job and keep your art pure.
posted by jfuller at 6:21 AM on September 5, 2001
Without a record contract, a band is unlikely to find an audience.
Until now.
posted by rushmc at 6:49 AM on September 5, 2001
Until now.
posted by rushmc at 6:49 AM on September 5, 2001
People won't pay for something they can get for free
This phrase has been used time and time again since Napster and it's ilk first started out, yet the record companies are still turning a healthy profit, the big name 'artists' like Britney et al. are still signing big-money sponsorship deals and the kids are still downloading their music in MP3. People download far more than they ever buy, but those inclined to buy music still do despite (and perhaps because of) having it on MP3. It allows you to try before you buy which, with CDs (in the UK) costing £12 to £15, is an idea which most people think is a good one.
In the meantime, many people have found bands they would never have otherwise heard.
They can be enforced -- see Napster
No they can't, you plug one hole and another dozen spring a leak - see Gnutella, Audiogalaxy etc. etc.
What the record companies are forgetting is that where there's a will, there's always a way.
I don't condone stealing, and have never used Napster or any other P2P system to share copyrighted music, I fortunately have enough friends in the music business to keep me more than occupied with new music. But I'm damn sure that record company executives won't be selling their Beverly Hills Mansions in the near future.
jfuller - exactly!
posted by Markb at 7:26 AM on September 5, 2001
This phrase has been used time and time again since Napster and it's ilk first started out, yet the record companies are still turning a healthy profit, the big name 'artists' like Britney et al. are still signing big-money sponsorship deals and the kids are still downloading their music in MP3. People download far more than they ever buy, but those inclined to buy music still do despite (and perhaps because of) having it on MP3. It allows you to try before you buy which, with CDs (in the UK) costing £12 to £15, is an idea which most people think is a good one.
In the meantime, many people have found bands they would never have otherwise heard.
They can be enforced -- see Napster
No they can't, you plug one hole and another dozen spring a leak - see Gnutella, Audiogalaxy etc. etc.
What the record companies are forgetting is that where there's a will, there's always a way.
I don't condone stealing, and have never used Napster or any other P2P system to share copyrighted music, I fortunately have enough friends in the music business to keep me more than occupied with new music. But I'm damn sure that record company executives won't be selling their Beverly Hills Mansions in the near future.
jfuller - exactly!
posted by Markb at 7:26 AM on September 5, 2001
Behold the collossal stupidity of the Recording Industry. They genuinely thought a bunch of high priced lawyers could actually drive the barbarians back over the wall.
The future of musical commerce is not in recordings, it is in nonrecordings: Live Shows.
Compare the Grateful Dead, who never made any money recording their music compared to the money they made touring, in which they had to play it a different way each night to keep it a viable product to Britney Spears. The Dead lasted 30 years. Does anyone think Debbie Gibson -err, Britney Spears will be anything but a spent has-been with implants in 5 years??
The difference is the dead made music, while [insert teeny bopper of the month here] is a cynical marketing product with a short shelf life by design.
So the real question is: who has longer to live, the Recording Industry as we now know it or the ironically named Ms. Spears?
posted by BentPenguin at 7:34 AM on September 5, 2001
The future of musical commerce is not in recordings, it is in nonrecordings: Live Shows.
Compare the Grateful Dead, who never made any money recording their music compared to the money they made touring, in which they had to play it a different way each night to keep it a viable product to Britney Spears. The Dead lasted 30 years. Does anyone think Debbie Gibson -err, Britney Spears will be anything but a spent has-been with implants in 5 years??
The difference is the dead made music, while [insert teeny bopper of the month here] is a cynical marketing product with a short shelf life by design.
So the real question is: who has longer to live, the Recording Industry as we now know it or the ironically named Ms. Spears?
posted by BentPenguin at 7:34 AM on September 5, 2001
Compliance with an unjust law is no virtue. All this talk of "stealing" is a bit silly. Copyright is just a law. There's nothing necessarily immoral about breaking it.
Music has been a part of human culture for as long as there has been such a thing as human culture. It survived just fine without copyright law in the past, and if music copyrights collapse, the music will keep right on playing. We are a musical species, and we will find ways to hear and make music no matter what the law says.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:39 AM on September 5, 2001
Music has been a part of human culture for as long as there has been such a thing as human culture. It survived just fine without copyright law in the past, and if music copyrights collapse, the music will keep right on playing. We are a musical species, and we will find ways to hear and make music no matter what the law says.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:39 AM on September 5, 2001
I think file sharing, by broadening musical horizons for free and making music exciting again, will ultimately help increase record sales.
Compare and contrast such sentiments, then, with artist reported incidents of record companies refusing to release box sets, b-side compilations and the like because they don't think that they will sell because the tracks have already been P2P'ed and bootlegged to the point of market saturation. I can think of five such non-releases in the last couple of years.
Whether or not the concept (that saturation has been reached with unofficial circulation) is true, it has had an impact on the availability of good music by good bands, and that, plainly said, sucks -- especially for those of us who don't engage in MP3 trading and who would gladly plunk down quite a bit of hard earned cash to buy real music (not product) that is officially mixed, mastered and released by our favourite artists.
posted by Dreama at 7:43 AM on September 5, 2001
Compare and contrast such sentiments, then, with artist reported incidents of record companies refusing to release box sets, b-side compilations and the like because they don't think that they will sell because the tracks have already been P2P'ed and bootlegged to the point of market saturation. I can think of five such non-releases in the last couple of years.
Whether or not the concept (that saturation has been reached with unofficial circulation) is true, it has had an impact on the availability of good music by good bands, and that, plainly said, sucks -- especially for those of us who don't engage in MP3 trading and who would gladly plunk down quite a bit of hard earned cash to buy real music (not product) that is officially mixed, mastered and released by our favourite artists.
posted by Dreama at 7:43 AM on September 5, 2001
Dreama, or could it just be that P2P has become an excuse for the record companies as well as a convenient target.
"Sorry Mr. Dolce, we were going to release your greatest hits box set if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their P2P, don't call us, we'll call you...."
It does, as you say suck but I find it hard to believe that the kind of people who buy box sets and special releases of (non product) artists would rather download them for free and stiff the artist. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, theres two of us right there...
posted by Markb at 8:14 AM on September 5, 2001
"Sorry Mr. Dolce, we were going to release your greatest hits box set if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their P2P, don't call us, we'll call you...."
It does, as you say suck but I find it hard to believe that the kind of people who buy box sets and special releases of (non product) artists would rather download them for free and stiff the artist. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, theres two of us right there...
posted by Markb at 8:14 AM on September 5, 2001
Markb -- that's my point, P2P is an excuse, but it is compelling enough in the record companies' opinion to withhold material. It doesn't matter if every fan who had downloaded the material would still go out and buy it, they are going to jump on the P2P thing and use it and flog it until we can't stand it anymore, and who loses? The fans lose because music isn't being made available to them. The artists lose because their music isn't being released, which diminishes their marketability as well as their revenue stream. The record companies don't lose because for every box set of _____'s Greatest Hits, B-Sides & Unreleased Favourites that they don't release, they make up the difference with yet another flavour of the month that will never become enough of an artist to warrant a greatest hits package, but will sell enough product in their temporary stardom to be a convenient cash cow that the companies don't have to worry about.
posted by Dreama at 8:22 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by Dreama at 8:22 AM on September 5, 2001
"Copyright is just a law. There's nothing necessarily immoral about breaking it."
Dangerous logic when applied to other laws.
posted by mrbula at 8:23 AM on September 5, 2001
Dangerous logic when applied to other laws.
posted by mrbula at 8:23 AM on September 5, 2001
has anyone else noticed that Morpheus and Kazaa seem to be the same piece of software?
posted by o2b at 8:31 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by o2b at 8:31 AM on September 5, 2001
Morpheus == Kazaa without the bitrate restriction and some of the spyware.
Me, I'm still using the Napster protocol if not their servers - audioGnome and a bunch of OpenNap servers return more hits than Morpheus/Kazaa or Gnutella for the stuff I'm searching for - 80s/90s dance, white labels and DJ mixes.
posted by SiW at 8:40 AM on September 5, 2001
Me, I'm still using the Napster protocol if not their servers - audioGnome and a bunch of OpenNap servers return more hits than Morpheus/Kazaa or Gnutella for the stuff I'm searching for - 80s/90s dance, white labels and DJ mixes.
posted by SiW at 8:40 AM on September 5, 2001
Markb -- that's my point, P2P is an excuse, but it is compelling enough in the record companies' opinion to withhold material. Or, just a thought, it's 'compelling enough' for the record companies to try and use it to get the artists to feel more responsible for taking a stand or for trying to support the record companies position against P2P. As a means of manipulation, that is. Just a thought.
posted by thunder at 8:47 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by thunder at 8:47 AM on September 5, 2001
Dreama - I agree to a point, but I fear the reason they need an excuse is the problem, not that of P2P.
Why go to the expense of re-mastering and re-packaging the work of an artist who had a contract which actually let them see some of the revenue generated by the sales of their work, when you can sign up the next teen wannabe with a contract the mafia would consider unfair to the performer (I can't bring myself to use artist) and shift twice as many units?
Many artists of the '70s and '80s will never have their work re-released when for considerably less outlay and more profit we can be force fed Britney.
posted by Markb at 8:50 AM on September 5, 2001
Why go to the expense of re-mastering and re-packaging the work of an artist who had a contract which actually let them see some of the revenue generated by the sales of their work, when you can sign up the next teen wannabe with a contract the mafia would consider unfair to the performer (I can't bring myself to use artist) and shift twice as many units?
Many artists of the '70s and '80s will never have their work re-released when for considerably less outlay and more profit we can be force fed Britney.
posted by Markb at 8:50 AM on September 5, 2001
I did a quick survey of my rather large MP3 collection the other day, and realized that over 85% of it was either stuff that I own on tape (ack!) or CD and wanted in MP3 format (which I believe is legal), stuff that I once owned and have lost, or rare international tracks that I couldn't buy if I wanted to (the latter two not being legal, but to my mind not that immoral). Just because I frequently use AudioGalaxy doesn't mean I'm getting a lot of illegal music.
posted by jess at 9:00 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by jess at 9:00 AM on September 5, 2001
Jess, so are you going to delete the 15% of the files you've decided are 'illegal' and buy the CDs?
posted by MarkC at 9:23 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by MarkC at 9:23 AM on September 5, 2001
Someday a matter-duplicator will be invented, and Dreama and ParisParamus and MarkC will argue that it's immoral to copy a sandwich for a hungry friend because the butcher and the baker have a right to their incomes.
posted by nicwolff at 11:35 AM on September 5, 2001
posted by nicwolff at 11:35 AM on September 5, 2001
Morpheus == Kazaa without the bitrate restriction and some of the spyware.
MusicCity's Morpheus, KaZaA and Grokster are all using P2P software licensed from the Amsterdam-company FastTrack. (KaZaA is actually FastTrack's own native version.) Of the three systems, only KaZaA prohibits transfers of >128kbps (it is saving this feature for the system's commercial launch). Although Morpheus' documentation indicates that you can't get >128kbps, both it and Grokster have full MP3 transfer capabilities.
Audiogalaxy, while fine-and-dandy, will only remain fine-and-dandy for as long as the RIAA is busy with Napster. Their system is (for all intents and purposes) pretty much exactly like Napster, and as soon as the RIAA has a legal precedent, Audiogalaxy will be dead as a doornail. My advice would be for people to look for alternatives to it now.
KaZaA and its ilk are all closed-source. Ditto for LimeWire and Bearshare (the best Gnutella clients). All of the above are susceptible to shut-down, in differing degrees. Regardless, it would be best for the world at large if an open source, non-centralized system such as Gnucleus became the de facto standard. Metafilter, it is in your hands.
posted by Marquis at 2:47 PM on September 5, 2001
MusicCity's Morpheus, KaZaA and Grokster are all using P2P software licensed from the Amsterdam-company FastTrack. (KaZaA is actually FastTrack's own native version.) Of the three systems, only KaZaA prohibits transfers of >128kbps (it is saving this feature for the system's commercial launch). Although Morpheus' documentation indicates that you can't get >128kbps, both it and Grokster have full MP3 transfer capabilities.
Audiogalaxy, while fine-and-dandy, will only remain fine-and-dandy for as long as the RIAA is busy with Napster. Their system is (for all intents and purposes) pretty much exactly like Napster, and as soon as the RIAA has a legal precedent, Audiogalaxy will be dead as a doornail. My advice would be for people to look for alternatives to it now.
KaZaA and its ilk are all closed-source. Ditto for LimeWire and Bearshare (the best Gnutella clients). All of the above are susceptible to shut-down, in differing degrees. Regardless, it would be best for the world at large if an open source, non-centralized system such as Gnucleus became the de facto standard. Metafilter, it is in your hands.
posted by Marquis at 2:47 PM on September 5, 2001
I have friends who show up at work with stacks of CD's that they burned from MP3s off Napster or some other file sharing site. Hmm. Wonder if they will ever go out and buy the real CD.... Doubt it. Music file sharing, plain & simple, is stealing. Dress it up any way you want. Cloak it in your arguments about how the RIAA is screwing the artist. When you smoke clears and you have put away your mirrors, show me how many CD's you went out and bought.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:08 PM on September 5, 2001
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:08 PM on September 5, 2001
Stealing: I own a car. It is a beautiful BMW. I paid a lot of money for it and polish it. You walk past it and defeat the (extensive) security systems and drive away.
Copying: I own a car. It is a beautiful BMW. I paid a lot of money for it and polish it. I make an exact replica in my garage. I put it out in the road with a sign on it that says "I'm not a real BMW, take me, I'm yours".
In the second case you might be able to argue that BMW lost money because a person received a car for free but you could make the same argument if that person made their own car. In the first case not only are BMW denied a profit but I LOSE MY CAR. That is the immorality inherent in stealing.
It seems to me that this whole p2p thing is the new radio. Only instead of a radio for music it's also a radio for films and books and any other file.
posted by davidgentle at 4:00 PM on September 5, 2001
Copying: I own a car. It is a beautiful BMW. I paid a lot of money for it and polish it. I make an exact replica in my garage. I put it out in the road with a sign on it that says "I'm not a real BMW, take me, I'm yours".
In the second case you might be able to argue that BMW lost money because a person received a car for free but you could make the same argument if that person made their own car. In the first case not only are BMW denied a profit but I LOSE MY CAR. That is the immorality inherent in stealing.
It seems to me that this whole p2p thing is the new radio. Only instead of a radio for music it's also a radio for films and books and any other file.
posted by davidgentle at 4:00 PM on September 5, 2001
What davidgentle (and more wryly, nicwolff) said- while someone who gets a digital copy of the music for free may not buy the album, we can't say for certain they would have bought it at all if the free download weren't an option. However, it costs the record company absolutely nothing in production costs for any additional copies of the music that are made through file sharing; the only loss and therefore the only stealing comes from the potential and theoretical loss of revenues from albums not sold to people. It's worth noting that during the heydey of Napster records sale were healthy and booming, yet when Napster started getting really pummeled and users were deserting it en masse, record sales similarly went down. Coincidence? Perhaps- but it's yet to be shown that file sharing is actually cutting into real profits or preventing good music from being written and performed, not withstanding the pipe Dreama scenarios mentioned above... :)
I'd also like to point out again what I said way up top, and folks like jfuller have second'ed: real musicians will write and perform because they have to, because it's in their blood, because when you're a musician you can't walk down the street or ride the bus or eat lunch without a tune in your head, without your feet and hands and fingers all tapping away at music that for now only you can hear. If a musician/composer/performer can make a living, even a decent one that affords them the luxury to focus on their craft and passion, then huzzah! But this all-about-da-benjamins MTV Cribs nonsense that one hit single with a catchy 1-4-5 progression and a slick marketing campaign combining sexual repression and titillation somehow entitles you to live in a mansion and drive multiple black mercedes just has to stop. And that goes doubly true for the executives who don't stir the air with the sound of even one note yet profit mightily off the work of others because they offer the only channel for what was the monopolized distribution and promotion of music. What file-sharing and true global word- of- mouth offer is the chance to bypass those executives and that feudal musical hierarchy. This will leave the musicians to make their money (and the truly talented artists will always make a very generous living, if not the freakin' $40M Britney was reported to have earned last year) on live performances and smaller record and schwag sales to a devoted fanbase that could span the earth. To think of an extreme example, if Mozart were alive today, he'd be 245 years old. :) But also, his ludicrous talent would make him probably the wealthiest musician to ever live- but that's not why he'd write the music, and all the money in the world couldn't make him stop.
posted by hincandenza at 5:33 PM on September 5, 2001
And continuing on nicwolff's riff about some people who seem way too quick to defend the status quo of any and all big business institutions, I'm reminded of this great post from Plastic.com (yes, that Plastic.com) in their version of MeFi's own Starbuck's gets local coffeehouse owner arrested thread. I quote in excerpts:
Once more, someone confuses quantity with quality; what on earth can you say to someone who can only measure worth in currency?You aren't a true free marketeer, Anonymous. (You rarely are.) You, Anonymous, are a worshipper of power, nothing more; you fetishize sales reports and profit margins and box office returns and TV ratings as if they were a magical process, as if, through contagion, their success would rub off on you like some minor mirror of their wealth and power. That's why you love millions of sales and tax cuts for the rich and box office blockbusters and shoe companies that pay a single megastar more to preen in a couple of commercials than their entire Asian workforce that actually makes their products--even if their aggrandizement hurts you directly. That's why you sneer at people who try to get something back when they've been cut or burned or driven out of business by these giant bullies--you've got to distance yourself from their pathetic loss as much as possible, lest it drag you down. Even if in the final analysis you have far more in common with those "losers"; even if it's shown to you how their cause would benefit you and make your world a better place. You are superstitious and ignorant, knowing nothing of the true workings of what you term the "free market," and desperate to remain that way.
I don't know who that guy is, but he's my new hero... :)
posted by hincandenza at 5:49 PM on September 5, 2001
napster may be dead.
but there will always be alternatives.
mp3 sharing will live forever..
or something
posted by MrJesus at 5:53 PM on September 5, 2001
but there will always be alternatives.
mp3 sharing will live forever..
or something
posted by MrJesus at 5:53 PM on September 5, 2001
I don't know how this whole MP3 debacle will resolve, but it will certainly be interesting to find out. We can already see that the RIAA is fighting an impossible battle. Although, during the reign of Napster, CD sales did not decline as a whole, I remember hearing somewhere (probably here) that they declined substantially in college areas. You can argue all you want that MP3 downloaders would still buy the CDs out of respect for the artist, but if they know anything about how CD sales work, they'll realize that no proportion of their $15 goes directly to the artist, and thus, neglect to feel the need to buy CDs. MP3 (DivX, too, for that matter) is a revolutionary technology leap, and eventually will begin to affect the industry in ways we can reasonably identify. Things will really get exciting when the entire CD distribution model falls apart, because unless we hit some kind of massive depression, soon the music industry is going to have to rethink everything that's worked in the past.
posted by Laugh_track at 6:35 PM on September 5, 2001
posted by Laugh_track at 6:35 PM on September 5, 2001
KevinSkomsvold, as has been said before copyright violation is not stealing.
To steal you need to remove a physical item from the presence of the owner against their will (check the dictionary for a shorter version of what I just said -- larceny on dictionary.com gives a great example).
When you copy the only non-theoretical damage you are doing is adjusting the ego of the writer of the music. They may take the humble route and be elated that more people are listening to their music, or they may take the fiscal route and be sad because they want money and you didn't give them any.
Theoretical damages are just that. You might say I would spend thousand of dollars a year rather than downloading, but even if I were rich I would not. Downloading new music is easier than driving to the store and opens my palette up to music that doesn't exist on the radio or at stores. alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.dance is a godsend if you are bored and want to try something new (did I just say that? =^).
If we want to speak theoretical damages, I might as well sue the college for $5 billion dollars next time I trip and fall there. Why? Not for suffering, but because I _might_ have made a $5 billion dollar business deal in the time I was in the hospital. You don't believe me? Well, that's how I feel when the RIAA thinks I would buy the overpriced one-hit-wonder trash that makes it onto the radio today.
Because of MP3 I've heard of great record companies like Warp, Delsin Records, and many others. There isn't much chance I would have gotten into modern electronic music without MP3. Simply put, until just lately, for me, getting anything outside of the TOP 40 in a big-name record store meant driving hours and hours outside the city.
After saying that, do you feel laws protecting the egos of Big Name Bands (who the record companies would suggest have the most to lose from Napster) are justified?
If so, I want $250,000 and a 5 year jail term for the next person that calls me a cheap pirating bastard. It hurts my ego, which makes it more difficult for me to get a job, and therefore causes me to lose the money I so rightfully deserve.
posted by shepd at 6:51 PM on September 5, 2001
To steal you need to remove a physical item from the presence of the owner against their will (check the dictionary for a shorter version of what I just said -- larceny on dictionary.com gives a great example).
When you copy the only non-theoretical damage you are doing is adjusting the ego of the writer of the music. They may take the humble route and be elated that more people are listening to their music, or they may take the fiscal route and be sad because they want money and you didn't give them any.
Theoretical damages are just that. You might say I would spend thousand of dollars a year rather than downloading, but even if I were rich I would not. Downloading new music is easier than driving to the store and opens my palette up to music that doesn't exist on the radio or at stores. alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.dance is a godsend if you are bored and want to try something new (did I just say that? =^).
If we want to speak theoretical damages, I might as well sue the college for $5 billion dollars next time I trip and fall there. Why? Not for suffering, but because I _might_ have made a $5 billion dollar business deal in the time I was in the hospital. You don't believe me? Well, that's how I feel when the RIAA thinks I would buy the overpriced one-hit-wonder trash that makes it onto the radio today.
Because of MP3 I've heard of great record companies like Warp, Delsin Records, and many others. There isn't much chance I would have gotten into modern electronic music without MP3. Simply put, until just lately, for me, getting anything outside of the TOP 40 in a big-name record store meant driving hours and hours outside the city.
After saying that, do you feel laws protecting the egos of Big Name Bands (who the record companies would suggest have the most to lose from Napster) are justified?
If so, I want $250,000 and a 5 year jail term for the next person that calls me a cheap pirating bastard. It hurts my ego, which makes it more difficult for me to get a job, and therefore causes me to lose the money I so rightfully deserve.
posted by shepd at 6:51 PM on September 5, 2001
P2P is an excuse, but it is compelling enough in the record companies' opinion to withhold material. It doesn't matter if every fan who had downloaded the material would still go out and buy it, they are going to jump on the P2P thing and use it and flog it until we can't stand it anymore, and who loses?
And your solution is to kowtow to this sort of cynical bullying?!?
posted by rushmc at 7:33 PM on September 5, 2001
And your solution is to kowtow to this sort of cynical bullying?!?
posted by rushmc at 7:33 PM on September 5, 2001
Remember, we all live on the internet and we think MP3's on our computers are very important. Do you know why downloading special music files and burning them onto CD's with computer equipment will never replace record companies and buying things in stores? Because normal people don't want to download special music files and burn them with computer equipment. Until AOL creates Keyword: Steal Music And Replicate A CD For Me, people will still go to stores and buy albums. And even then there's still the 50% of computer illiterate America to sell to. It's as simple as that.
posted by kevspace at 7:38 PM on September 5, 2001
posted by kevspace at 7:38 PM on September 5, 2001
>And even then there's still the 50% of computer illiterate America to sell to.
That's where the fight gets weird. The more the RIAA complains about the P2P services, the more the word that they exist spreads. Joe Sixpack reads the news. He sees "RIAA sues to stop free internet music service", sees that a software called "Gnutella" (I'm being incorrect since it's likely Joe Sixpack doesn't understand what Gnutella is) will allow him to "Download" his favourite music onto a computer. He figures this must work because the RIAA is losing trillions of dollars in sales each and every nano-second; So he buys a computer and starts downloading.
He can't figure it out so he asks Frank down the road to "download" Gnutella onto his computer.
The RIAA is their own worst enemy. You can't fight an idea.
posted by shepd at 7:48 PM on September 5, 2001
That's where the fight gets weird. The more the RIAA complains about the P2P services, the more the word that they exist spreads. Joe Sixpack reads the news. He sees "RIAA sues to stop free internet music service", sees that a software called "Gnutella" (I'm being incorrect since it's likely Joe Sixpack doesn't understand what Gnutella is) will allow him to "Download" his favourite music onto a computer. He figures this must work because the RIAA is losing trillions of dollars in sales each and every nano-second; So he buys a computer and starts downloading.
He can't figure it out so he asks Frank down the road to "download" Gnutella onto his computer.
The RIAA is their own worst enemy. You can't fight an idea.
posted by shepd at 7:48 PM on September 5, 2001
You can't fight an idea. How true- heck, remember when the code for DeCSS was initially "banned", it just ended up on t-shirts... the Gnutella idea is a logical extension of the Internet itself: a system of communication that is decentralized and unstoppable. Sweeeeeet...
posted by hincandenza at 12:46 AM on September 6, 2001
posted by hincandenza at 12:46 AM on September 6, 2001
Oh the shame...this makes me want to go hang out on plastic. That poster is my new hero (for the next five minutes at least), too, hincandenza.
But in the words of Bush Senior (or maybe just Dana Carvey's version), "Not gunna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."
Oh, and - *cough*winmx.com*cough*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:16 AM on September 6, 2001
But in the words of Bush Senior (or maybe just Dana Carvey's version), "Not gunna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."
Oh, and - *cough*winmx.com*cough*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:16 AM on September 6, 2001
I must add that at least 90% of the music I now listen to I never heard before I started using Napster etc. Why? Because it is made by independant artists who dont get any coverage. The only reason I found out about them was from message boards and remixes of other artists. I have even written to a few of them via email and gotten friendly responses even when I gave full disclosure and told them I listened to MP3s they never got paid for (cheers to Klute, Sabres of Paradise, et al). Most of them make their money selling vinyl releases and MP3s are no competition at all for DJs. And besides, there are so many Epitonics and Reals out there giving away the tracks that you can get almost any MP3 you want "legally" if you have the time to chase them down, but then it is just the same file you download off Napster/AG except someone has already found it for you. I think the only solution is for the companies to give MP3s away, and then everyone will know that they have no value (for now -- once the players get cheaper that may change) and that the value lies in the album art, packaging etc. MP3 sounds fine for electronic music, but listening to the Stones or Hendrix sounds like its coming out of a tin can. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to test-drive AudioGnome...
posted by fellorwaspushed at 10:57 AM on September 6, 2001
posted by fellorwaspushed at 10:57 AM on September 6, 2001
« Older Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, | Rice Ball Guy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:02 AM on September 5, 2001