The Cellar - View Single Post

wst3 · 01-17-2001, 03:55 PM

Some may perceive this as a cheap way to start a thread... let's face it, there aren't many topics that divide the masses as quickly as this!

But it really isn't! I'd like to hear from everyone, but especially those who have rationalized stealing music... which I guess gives away which side I'm standing on<G>!

Since I started it, let me briefly(?) state my case:

And let me make one thing very clear... I am not talking about files that are available through Napster because the artist chose to make them available. That is not the problem! If an artist chooses to make their material available for everyone to download either through Napster or on any other web site that is their priviledge... it is their intellectual property and they can (within the bounds of any contractual obligations they have) do with it what they wish.

I have several problems with Napster, and when I really stop to think about it, I can only find one positive thing to say, so I'll start there... Napster could provide solutions to two of the bigger problems facing the music industry today - (a) breaking new acts and (b) pandering to folks who don't have the imagination to listen to an entire album. OK, perhaps I could have worded that second one a little differently, but the fact is that many record buyers only want to buy the hits... the pendulum swings back to the days of personality radio and the top 10! The catch is that back then it was genuinely cheaper to produce a single than an LP, and today the price benefit isn't there, so a CD-single costs almost as much as a CD album. This makes it very difficult for young buyers to buy only those things that radio and MTV have beaten into their immature little brains.

Guess my bias is showing... when I came of age it was the era of album rock... grand concept albums and artists filling their albums with mostly good stuff. You might buy an album on the strength of something you heard on the radio, but you could be pretty certain that you'd find other stuff there you liked as well.

But times change, and I guess I should just be glad that I grew up when I did (musically speaking anyway!)

So what's wrong with Napster?

1) It is a thinly veiled attempt to pick the venture capitalist's pockets without actually doing anything

I guess this irks me because it is just so insulting to everyone. The folks that started Napster did so with an eye towards making a quick buck through the investment community. There's nothing ethically wrong with this approach, though some may point out that it doesn't actually work all that well - the point is they are giving away other people's property, property they have no legal right to, in order to make a buck. They are using other people's hard work to get rich... yeah, that shows tremendous respect for all the artists they claim to be helping!

Come on now... these folks are so cheap they didn't even buy the CDs that they are distributing... they let their members do it for them. And they don't support the servers that serve up the music... once again they let their members do it.

So they have a business plan where they don't have to pay for the infrastructure, or the content, and they get a big payday because this little scam attracts the eyeballs that some pundit has decided are worth advertising to.

It is a heck of a business plan!!!

2) It does not respect the artist's right to choose how they distribute their intellectual property

To me this is the bottom line. An artist creates something because they have the need to express themselves... but if you think that they don't expect to be compensated for their efforts, their creativity, etc, well, you live in an interesting world!

It's called the music business for a reason... if there were no element of commerce it would be called the music art. We have long ago left the age when patrons supported the arts... especially popular arts.

3) It prevents the artist from controlling the quality of the presentation of their intellectual property.

If you really think that MP3 encoded files sound as good as the original CD... or for that matter that a CD sounds as good as the original master tapes... well, you need help developing your hearing. MP3s are convenient... no question, but the don't sound all that great, and, believe it or not, a lot of folks spend a lot of effort and money trying to get their music to sound just so. Napster takes that control away from them.

Some will argue that since the artist can't control the system that their work is played back on the whole issue is moot... but I think that misses the point! They tried to create the best possible source so that you could hear what they heard, or at least some close approximation!

4) It is theft

There you have it... you have something that was originally intended to provide a return on the investment made to create it, and you didn't play your assigned role... you didn't pay for it. If they'd wanted you to have it for free they'd have found a way to get it to you for free... it ain't that tough!

5) Ultimately, Napster can only hurt the very industry it claims to be trying to help.

If people stop buying CDs then artists will cease to make a living as artists and they will have to find other ways to feed and clothe themselves... and that means no more new music to listen to. (No, I don't believe it will get that far, but you have to acknowledge that it is the ultimate outcome.) Would you continue to do whatever it is you do for a living if you didn't get paid?

Now let's take a look at what Napster is not doing...

It isn't changing the way that the evil record companies do business, though it certainly was a wakeup call. So, stealing your favorite tune from an artist does not remove the yoke that the evil record company placed on their shoulders... no, it actually adds a few pounds to the weight.

And it isn't changing the way that the marketplace works. Napster depends largely on commercially distributed work to get people to use thier client (which provides the advertising)... so they haven't changed a thing.

There is one popular argument that I think needs some air. Proponents of Napster point to the music industry's paranoid delusions that claimed that cassette recorders, video recorders, DAT recorders, and CD recorders were all going to spell the end of distributed music. Then they like to point to sales figures that show that CD sales continue to grow.

THEN they say that like its predecessors, Napster actually increases CD sales.

Well, these folks must have skipped logic 101... there is no direct, causal relationship between Napster members downloading tunes and these same folks buying the CDs. Nor were these arguments any more logical in the preceding cases.

Most likely, CD sales continue to grow because the industry knows how to sell CDs to adolescents... that and the fact that the audience for the current pop music is growing.

Of all the people I know that steal their music from Napster, almost none of them purchase the CDs. They are far too happy to get their music for free.

I'll end this with my other favorite rationale for stealing... which says something to the effect that if you don't like something that you downloaded all that much you wouldn't have bought it anyway... huh???
Your thoughts??

01-17-2001, 03:55 PM	#1
wst3 Simulated Simulacrum Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pennsylvannia Posts: 39	Some may perceive this as a cheap way to start a thread... let's face it, there aren't many topics that divide the masses as quickly as this! But it really isn't! I'd like to hear from everyone, but especially those who have rationalized stealing music... which I guess gives away which side I'm standing on<G>! Since I started it, let me briefly(?) state my case: And let me make one thing very clear... I am not talking about files that are available through Napster because the artist chose to make them available. That is not the problem! If an artist chooses to make their material available for everyone to download either through Napster or on any other web site that is their priviledge... it is their intellectual property and they can (within the bounds of any contractual obligations they have) do with it what they wish. I have several problems with Napster, and when I really stop to think about it, I can only find one positive thing to say, so I'll start there... Napster could provide solutions to two of the bigger problems facing the music industry today - (a) breaking new acts and (b) pandering to folks who don't have the imagination to listen to an entire album. OK, perhaps I could have worded that second one a little differently, but the fact is that many record buyers only want to buy the hits... the pendulum swings back to the days of personality radio and the top 10! The catch is that back then it was genuinely cheaper to produce a single than an LP, and today the price benefit isn't there, so a CD-single costs almost as much as a CD album. This makes it very difficult for young buyers to buy only those things that radio and MTV have beaten into their immature little brains. Guess my bias is showing... when I came of age it was the era of album rock... grand concept albums and artists filling their albums with mostly good stuff. You might buy an album on the strength of something you heard on the radio, but you could be pretty certain that you'd find other stuff there you liked as well. But times change, and I guess I should just be glad that I grew up when I did (musically speaking anyway!) So what's wrong with Napster? 1) It is a thinly veiled attempt to pick the venture capitalist's pockets without actually doing anything I guess this irks me because it is just so insulting to everyone. The folks that started Napster did so with an eye towards making a quick buck through the investment community. There's nothing ethically wrong with this approach, though some may point out that it doesn't actually work all that well - the point is they are giving away other people's property, property they have no legal right to, in order to make a buck. They are using other people's hard work to get rich... yeah, that shows tremendous respect for all the artists they claim to be helping! Come on now... these folks are so cheap they didn't even buy the CDs that they are distributing... they let their members do it for them. And they don't support the servers that serve up the music... once again they let their members do it. So they have a business plan where they don't have to pay for the infrastructure, or the content, and they get a big payday because this little scam attracts the eyeballs that some pundit has decided are worth advertising to. It is a heck of a business plan!!! 2) It does not respect the artist's right to choose how they distribute their intellectual property To me this is the bottom line. An artist creates something because they have the need to express themselves... but if you think that they don't expect to be compensated for their efforts, their creativity, etc, well, you live in an interesting world! It's called the music business for a reason... if there were no element of commerce it would be called the music art. We have long ago left the age when patrons supported the arts... especially popular arts. 3) It prevents the artist from controlling the quality of the presentation of their intellectual property. If you really think that MP3 encoded files sound as good as the original CD... or for that matter that a CD sounds as good as the original master tapes... well, you need help developing your hearing. MP3s are convenient... no question, but the don't sound all that great, and, believe it or not, a lot of folks spend a lot of effort and money trying to get their music to sound just so. Napster takes that control away from them. Some will argue that since the artist can't control the system that their work is played back on the whole issue is moot... but I think that misses the point! They tried to create the best possible source so that you could hear what they heard, or at least some close approximation! 4) It is theft There you have it... you have something that was originally intended to provide a return on the investment made to create it, and you didn't play your assigned role... you didn't pay for it. If they'd wanted you to have it for free they'd have found a way to get it to you for free... it ain't that tough! 5) Ultimately, Napster can only hurt the very industry it claims to be trying to help. If people stop buying CDs then artists will cease to make a living as artists and they will have to find other ways to feed and clothe themselves... and that means no more new music to listen to. (No, I don't believe it will get that far, but you have to acknowledge that it is the ultimate outcome.) Would you continue to do whatever it is you do for a living if you didn't get paid? Now let's take a look at what Napster is not doing... It isn't changing the way that the evil record companies do business, though it certainly was a wakeup call. So, stealing your favorite tune from an artist does not remove the yoke that the evil record company placed on their shoulders... no, it actually adds a few pounds to the weight. And it isn't changing the way that the marketplace works. Napster depends largely on commercially distributed work to get people to use thier client (which provides the advertising)... so they haven't changed a thing. There is one popular argument that I think needs some air. Proponents of Napster point to the music industry's paranoid delusions that claimed that cassette recorders, video recorders, DAT recorders, and CD recorders were all going to spell the end of distributed music. Then they like to point to sales figures that show that CD sales continue to grow. THEN they say that like its predecessors, Napster actually increases CD sales. Well, these folks must have skipped logic 101... there is no direct, causal relationship between Napster members downloading tunes and these same folks buying the CDs. Nor were these arguments any more logical in the preceding cases. Most likely, CD sales continue to grow because the industry knows how to sell CDs to adolescents... that and the fact that the audience for the current pop music is growing. Of all the people I know that steal their music from Napster, almost none of them purchase the CDs. They are far too happy to get their music for free. I'll end this with my other favorite rationale for stealing... which says something to the effect that if you don't like something that you downloaded all that much you wouldn't have bought it anyway... huh??? Your thoughts??