Napster... What is your view???

R

Rev E

New member
This issue has been a real hot issue lately. I just wanted to see how everyone feels about Napster.

Personally, I think that Napster is contributes to theft. I cannot understand a business model built on the concept that artists should allow a company to give away their music for free. What else are you supposed to sell if you're an artist? T-shirts??? From the logic of most of the discussion that I hear in favor of Napster, musicians should willingly embrace a concept that promotes illegal copying of their music so that they can sell advertising (for someone else's products).

How do you guys/gals feel about Napster? Do you use it? Do you wish you used it? Do you know folks who use it?

Rev E
 
I have mixed feelings towards Napster. I use it quite regularly so I don't have any serious misgivings about it but I do realize that the vast majority of Napster users are stealing music. I feel like the detrimental effects of Napster on artists is grossly exaggerated though. Could it potentially mean less income for them? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean it will put them at the poverty level. Many people fail to look at the good things Napster does for artists. The most obvious is the the widespread distribution outlet that it gives unsigned artists. Also there is the try before you buy aspect. Another thing that I see as a benefit but many other people will probably disagree with me about is the potential to weed out the wealth of truly untalented musicians out there. My favorite band is the Dave Matthews Band. They are easily one of the bands with the biggest internet-savvy fanbase around. I would say that the ratio of DMB fans who are Napster users is as large as for any band out there. I have little doubt that the entire new album to be released in November will be available for download on Napster the day that it comes out if not a few days before then. However, I feel quite comfortable saying that it will still be platinum (probably a few times over) before the years end. The reason is because people who are big fans of a particular band and who truly appreciate their music are going to buy their CD's despite the music being available on Napster. The largest reason being that MP3's are inferior to the original recording but for most just getting the actual CD with the artwork and the jewel case and insert is reason enough. Secondly, DMB has an open taping policy at most all of their shows and allow these live performances to be traded freely. Therefore if you search for the Dave Matthews Band on Napster, I would guess that 75% or more of the results will be from completely legal crowd-taped shows. For instance, 8 of the songs that will be on the new album are already available right now because they were taped at recent live performances. My point is that if a band has an open taping policy and they are actually talented musicians then they can easily still make millions of dollars despite the effects of Napster. The one-hit wonders and bands that rely on "studio magic" will find it harder and harder to survive. To me, that is a good thing.

Now I'm sure there will be many who read this that feel that DMB is mainstream bullshit and that they have no talent. On that subject we will have to agree to disagree. My argument is not based around the fact that Napster doesn't hurt my favorite band. My argument is that if a band has true fans then they will not have to worry about album sales. There are quite a few obscure bands out there that I am a fan of who don't have nearly the fanbase that DMB does. They may lose some much needed money because of Napster but there's no rule saying the music business is supposed to be easy. When I signed up for guitar lessons nobody promised me that if I learned the major chords I would soon be a millionaire. It's like the bands now in my hometown that complain that people around here don't support live music and they are having a hard time making a living. To them I say, play quality music and I'll gladly come out to hear you. If getting up on a stage a playing music for a few hours a couple of nights a week was a garuanteed way to make good money, I sure as hell wouldn't be busting my ass from 8 to 5, Monday through Friday. But I digress. The fact is, if there is an obscure band that I really like, I tell my friends about them and they are much more likely to give them a chance if they don't have to pay to listen to them. In fact I can remember seeing Dave Matthews for a $5 cover in a crowd of less than 300 not too many years ago. Napster wasn't around then but there was a fan based mailing list and I did a whole lot of tape trading.

The last advantage I see of Napster is for musicians to learn songs without having to buy the CD's. As a guitar player I hear a lot songs that I would like to learn but I would never buy the CD's. So I download the song, figure it out, and delete it off my hard drive. No loss to the band because I would have never bought it anyway.
 
Cliff,

I understand, though I don't completely agree with your opinion. Here's another question/point. Although Napster may not have a major effect on an already successful ARTIST. Still every time a napster file is played, some SONGWRITER, who may or may not be the artist, is losing performance income.

I've heard a lot of talk about Napster being the radio of today. But the last time I checked at least licensed radio stations paid performance royalties to the songwriter/publisher, through it's license fees from the FCC.

Napster isn't only an Artist royalties issue, it's a Songwriter issue also. Don't forget there are some songwriters who are not Artists in any way and depend on performance and mechanical royalties to live. What do you think?

Rev E
 
I'm all for Napster.

The old record industry (big labels) didn't keep up with the new technologies(probably too busy thinking of new ways to screw their own "artists" with crooked contracts) and now they think the best way to deal with it is criminalize and penalize innocent people who listen to music. Their own customers. They lump the fans and listeners together with the real "pirates" who actually steal and reproduce music for a profit.

Now the big labels are coercing their "recording artists" into jumping on the bandwagon and taking out full page ads in major publications to reprimand their fans and whine on and on about all the money they're losing. The truth is new technologies like Napster are exponentially increasing their fan bases and introducing whole new markets to their music. They only stand to make even more millions down the line.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds it. Ungrateful greedy bastards. I hope they (the big labels) all go bankrupt.


[This message has been edited by hixmix (edited 07-17-2000).]
 
Although I've yet to use it,on one level I think it's cool if only because $16.98 is an obscene amount of money for the drivel that's on a lot of commercial CD's,but from the point of view of the artist unaffiliated with a large marketing juggernaut(like me)I can see where it could ultimately be detrimental in removing any incentive for anyone to spend any money for our product.
 
Hixmix,

You wrote: "Ultimately a medium like Napster will expose unknown artists to more potential fans than even thought possible 5 years ago. And there are so many unknown talented artists out there, how would you even know about them without something like Napster?"


I don't follow the logic. You have to know the title of the song to do a search on Napster. How does discover a new artist if they don't know of them and don't have a clue as to what they sing?


Old Grover,

You mention the fact that music sales are up this year. That may be true, but how is it that you can attribute that to Napster? There are a lot of factors that can legitimately explain a rise in music sales. Truth be known, music sales have been increasing for the last 3-4 years, every year. So is that because of Napster (even before it's existence??)

Hmmm???

Rev E
 
Sure virtual.ray,

And 1.79 was a whole lot to pay for a gallon of gas, but I didn't of hear of many people robbing gas stations. :D Just adding a little fuel to the fire to get the conversion going.

Rev E
 
Vray-

The medium of radio has been around for 75 years. Have people tape recording songs off the radio shut down the music industry? No.

Has the private use of VCR's ruined the movie industry? No. The movie industry continues to make record breaking profits every year.

Have people digitally recording live music acts, where recording is permitted or not, run that live act out of business? No.

On another level, would you buy expensive clothing without trying it on first. Would you buy a car without taking a test drive? Would you buy something for your studio without trying it out and hearing the results it produces first?

Ultimately a medium like Napster will expose unknown artists to more potential fans than even thought possible 5 years ago. And there are so many unknown talented artists out there, how would you even know about them without something like Napster?

You're going to hear less and less of talented new artists from the big boys. The days of them taking a chance on developing the career an original voice are OVER. Their bottom line is homogenized, high profit, unoriginal, ready for the masses, product schlock.

Mediums like Napster stand to challenge their status quo and that's why they're sending out the armies of lawyers. And sending out armies of lawyers is the only thing they do well anymore.

Viva la Revolucion!

peace,
hxmx








[This message has been edited by hixmix (edited 07-18-2000).]
 
My view...

The people who say "Everytime someone downloads a song from Napster, some musician loses" are incorrect - the correct statement is "everytime someone downloads a song from Napster WHO OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE SONG, some musician loses"

If the person A> can't afford the CD or B> would never have bought it, the musician lost absolutely nothing, while the person who downloaded gained - net gain of happiness in the world, gotta be a good thing.

On the other hand, the musician may actually have gained in this case, since the person may decide he wants a better recording, or wants to support the artist or wants a more convenient package, or wants to go see the artist live, or, or, or.... musicians can potentially make money in many ways and Napster/mp3.com/mp3z trading d00dz can actually help them in a number of ways.

There's nothing that pisses me off more then the "break into the house" analogy that record companies seem to like.

Since record sales have been increasing at huge rates since Napster/MP3's have been going on, I hardly think Napster has been a problem. I think it is cheap exposure for people - I know that majority of users just download the mainstream crap, but sometimes they find some gems that they would have just walked by in the music store. And that might lead them to walk into the music store and actually buy your CD.
 
RevE

OK. Suppose someone tells me about some new music that I never heard of before. Suppose the music was really great but there was no way I would ever hear it on the radio or MTV/VH1 because it did not yet, or might not ever have mass commercial appeal. I would want to be able to go to a place like Napster and listen to the music. If I liked what I heard I would become a fan of the musicians/writers
and pay money to attend their shows and buy their CD's.

I will even say the same for established, mainstream artists that I have yet to explore.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev E:
Hixmix,


I don't follow the logic. You have to know the title of the song to do a search on Napster. How does discover a new artist if they don't know of them and don't have a clue as to what they sing?

Rev E<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a way that Napster helps spread music of unknown artists.

While using Napster, you can look at the entire list of another user's music library. If every song in their library but one is a song you know and like, then the chances are pretty good that you will like the one song they have that you've never heard. I have been exposed to many new bands in this way.

In addition to that I find out about other bands on message boards for bands I already listen to. If someone post a message telling me to check out a band, it is a lot easier to download 15 seconds of one of their songs from Napster than it is for me to write down the artist and go to a music store in hopes that they have a copy available to listen to.
 
I *don't* KNOW that Napster is HELPING with the record sales climbing, but there is some pretty convincing evidence (to me, anyways) that it is not hurting. CD Sales increased 1.4 billion dollars last year - RIAA reports that 10.8% more CDs were sold last year then the previous year, and the income on those CDs increased 12.3%.

In other words, not only is the number of CDs being sold going up, so is the profit on each CD sold. This is a hurting industry?

As I said before, in order for a musician or company to be hurt by Napster, the number of people who WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE CD BUT DIDN'T has to be MORE then the number of people who DID buy the CD because they heard a snippet on Napster.

As was said above, Napster makes it trivial for me to TRY bands before I buy - weird stuff, recommended stuff. If I like it, I go shell out the money for the CD - it is more convenient and it supports the artists.

Preferably, I'd like to be able to buy the CD through Napster - links right to an artist run site so that the money lands in the artist's pocket, not the record companies'.
 
I will mention that the RIAA did a survey of record stores near campuses (people expect that students will be most active in the Napster/mp3 trading community) which showed that sales HAD dropped an average of 4%. However, the survey also noted that sales at record stores near campuses WHICH HAD BANNED (blocked) NAPSTER had dropped 7%! That seems to indicate that the 4% drop was not a Napster related thing - I would posit that it was actually online music sales that were hurting local record stores, since students are also the biggest adopter of those.
 
Hixmix/Cliff:

I hear what you guys are saying, BUT I still feel that what you are talking about is best case senario. I don't believe for one minute that what you describe are the majority of Napster folks. I have a friend who is a Napster geek. He has 400 - 500 songs that he's downloaded from Napster. He has no intent to buy the discs, and I can't blame him. He got what he wanted, the songs for free!

Further, just think of the kids being raised on that mentality.... if you can get it for free then take it. That's probably the worst legacy that a "Napster" mentality will leave... an impression on the kids that stealing (a.k.a. "borrowing", "trading", "swapping" whatever you want to call it) is perfectly ok.

To me the copyright law is fairly clear. It doesn't matter if the record labels are "snakes that get rich off their artists". None of that amounts to anything. The law doesn't allow a party to force or contribute to a situation where another party's copyrights are being stolen. That's what Napster is doing.

The worst part about it is that even with their "big money" investors they still didn't have the decency to at least pay up-front license fees (since they sometimes consider themselves like a Web radio station). Here's the Rev's prophecy..... Napster will lose their court case and owe the majors much money... maybe even "folding" as a business.

I don't have anything against the technology or the concept of a Napster, so long as they do the decent thing and seek licenses from copyright owners BEfore they run amuck with their copyrights and make copyrights irrelevant.

Rev E
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldGrover:
I will mention that the RIAA did a survey of record stores near campuses (people expect that students will be most active in the Napster/mp3 trading community) which showed that sales HAD dropped an average of 4%. However, the survey also noted that sales at record stores near campuses WHICH HAD BANNED (blocked) NAPSTER had dropped 7%! That seems to indicate that the 4% drop was not a Napster related thing - I would posit that it was actually online music sales that were hurting local record stores, since students are also the biggest adopter of those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


First of all I will say that I doubt the accuracy of these studies as well as the logic that goes along with them. Statistics can be biased to make a survey say anything the conductor of it wants. Since the RIAA has stake in the results I can't trust that sales have dropped in college towns because of their survey. Also the logic that students are the biggest Napster users is sensible but arguing that they will not buy CD's as a result may not be. What good does it do a student to download a song to a computer in a lab on campus. They can listen before they buy or listen while they work on something but they can't take it home. Unless of course the campus computers have zip drives to store it on and the students have zip drives on computers where they live. In addition to that they need a CD burner to make the music portable. It seems to me that college students aren't on the kinds of budgets that make this equipment readily available. I'd say college graduates are much more likely to have this equipment at their disposal. As for the second survey, which states a sharper decrease in college town where Napster was banned, if anything this makes the RIAA's argument stronger. If you think that banning stopped even a small fraction of kids from getting Napster access, you are kidding yourself. I was banned for a metallica song and it took me all of 15 minutes to get around it and I don't consider myself to be all that computer savvy. Most colleges that have banned Napster didn't do it for legal/ethical reasons, they did it because on-campus Napster use was so widespread that it was clogging up their networks. Therefore, places where it was banned should have the largest number of Napster users. The only thing banning something like that does is slow down people for a few days at the most. To go along with that, Rev E states in the post below yours that he thinks Napster will soon be shut down. Who cares, another site will take it's place immediately. There are already programs which exists which allow users to trade files without connecting to a third party site. That can't be stopped because there is no company to shut down in the first place. I'm not trying to make an argument for what's right or wrong ethically, I'm just stating the facts. The technology is light years beyond industries that are trying to stop it and there is really nothing they can do to catch up.
 
I for one think that Napster is more harmful than it is helpful. It's great for unsigned artists who are trying to get their music out in the public. I'm in a band, and we'll put our music wherever we can to get it heard. But we're not trying to make any money off our music right now. Napster DOES hurt the people who are trying to make money with their music. Metallica may have gone about confronting Napster the wrong way, but I agree with their reasons totally.

I've found that most people my age (19, college student) don't think twice about downloading music from Napster and never buying the CD. I guess they don't think that it matters, since they're only one person. They just don't think any deeper than that. And, Cliff, CD burners are MUCH more common than I think you realize. Almost everybody I know has access to at least one somewhere. There is the issue of getting the MP3 to the computer that the burner is installed in, but there are many ways to get around that. I know quite a few people who've obtained an entire album just from the downloaded MP3s.

Most average people, I believe, can't even really tell the difference between a true CD and an MP3. Sad but true. Most people with decent ears (probably everyone on this board) can tell the difference between the best-encoded MP3 and a CD. But I guess most people can't tell the difference or just don't care.

I've only used Napster once or twice, and both times I downloaded songs I already had on CD so I could listen to them in the computer lab at school. I don't really see anything wrong with this. I've also downloaded MP3s from scour.com and other places, but I only do it to see if I like a song enough to buy the CD. I then buy the CD or delete it.

These are just my opinions, of course.

Later, all.
 
I guess my point is that I don't think that even if Napster didn't exist those students you're talking about would be buying CD's - they'd be copying them from a friend.

There is no question (in my mind, at least) that Napster increases the amount of copies of a given set of music in the world, without directly compensating the musician. The question is does the indirect effect (ie, try before you buy) help the musician more then the "good enough" effect (mp3 is good enough for me) hurts.

Since I see record sales increasing AND increased interest in music AND people hearing stuff they might not otherwise hear AND people who just can't afford to buy the CD actually getting some music to listen to, I don't see how this can be anything but a win-win (yuck - business speak) for both the public and the consumers....

<looks around quickly for game studio lawyers> Lemme give you an example. Let us call this person Mike. When Mike was a dirt poor university student (as opposed to the relatively well off computer geek I am, err he is, today) he couldn't afford to buy computer games - heck, he could barely afford to buy lunch. So, he pirated. Did this hurt the game companies? Of course not. They got EXACTLY the same compensation they would have if Mike was not able to pirate - absolutely nothing. Now, Mike being all grown up and having an income, when he wants to go play a new game, he goes and buys it. If he pirated it, that would be wrong, since he can afford to do otherwise, he *IS* reducing the amount the game studios can expect to earn.

I guess my point is that the number of Metallica (or whatever) downloads isn't the issue, the issue is how many of those people would have otherwise purchased the CD and, solely because of Napster, didn't.

(I think I'm excessively long winded...)
 
One more :)

As a note, if students are using the campus network (which they normally are - students like the FAST downloads from the University's thick pipe to the net), then it is fairly trivial for the university to block the Napster IP blocks - ie, for anyone on the university, none of the napster computers exist. Sure, students can get around that - but only by using other, normally slower, connections, not the university's. To prove this works - well, the university's haven't had to do it again. They did it to stop the bandwidth usage, and the bandwidth usage stopped. Therefore, the ban worked.
 
The bottom line is copying music for personal use is perfectly legal. There is even a law that permits it: "The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992".

As I have said before listening to music is not a criminal activity. The real criminals are the "pirates" who manufacture multiple copies and sell them at a profit with out paying the "artist" proper compensation. Which is pretty much what the major labels do now.
 
Hixmix Wrote:
"The bottom line is copying music for personal use is perfectly legal. There is even a law that permits it: "The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992"."


Hixmix,
Not quite... The clause of the Audio Home Recording Act that you refered to was simply put in place so that consumers could LEgally copy music that they owned. Before the act, consumers technically were infinging on copyrights when they made copies of stuff for private, non-commercial use. Giving your friend a copy of copywritten music IS against the law. It interferes with the commercial activity of the copyright holder/seller of the music (from the Copyright Law).

Also, Napster IS a Business... a commercial entity. The "community", as they call it, is commercial. So they aren't covered by that act. If they were so concerned about being within the law, they would have paid royalties on each "swap", as the same Audio Home Recording Act requires.


Hixmix also wrote:
"As I have said before listening to music is not a criminal activity."


You're right about that. However, songwriters are paid when people "listen" to their music. This happens through licenses from performance media/venues (radio, concert halls, digital cable radio, etc..). There is no, I repeat no, licensing going on in the Napster network, so Songwriters are also losing (not just Artists as everyone keeps saying). Performance venues/media must by law pay royalties to songwriters/publishers. So to me Napster and other companies like it haven't covered themselves on either base. Yet they still want to justify what they're doing as legal. Paleeze!

Rev E
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top