|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 7 of 151:
| 
Jun 27 18:44 UTC 2001 |
Could it be, perhaps, that music is getting just too damn expensive?
I'm not a big music buff like many of you, but how many CDs can the
average person buy at $20 a pop?
|
slynne
|
|
response 8 of 151:
|
Jun 27 19:44 UTC 2001 |
I buy less than 10 cd's a year and so far this year have gotten over 50
free ones from work.
|
polygon
|
|
response 9 of 151:
|
Jun 27 21:24 UTC 2001 |
It has been years since I have purchased a new CD in a store -- mainly
because the prices are so high. I have never used Napster.
I do occasionally buy CDs from the artists directly, at concerts.
I think the last CD I bought from Tower was a cutout, and it was at least
seven years ago.
|
senna
|
|
response 10 of 151:
|
Jun 27 21:49 UTC 2001 |
I have never used Napster (and the only time I ever downloaded mp3s at all
was a couple of years ago when I downloaded perhaps 20 live Tool songs not
available on any cd. They were deleted some time ago). I buy cds a lot less
than I used to. I think part of the problem is that music isn't as good.
Sales boomed during the early alternative period, when not only grunge but
also rap produced large volumes of sales, but nothing new has moved in to take
its place. Electronica was hyped as the next alternative explosion several
years ago (with much discussion of how record execs were packing electronic
dance clubs the way they used to pack Seattle shows in the late 80s and early
90s), but nothing came of it.
I've puchased two new cds this year, both from bands formed and popularized
in the early 90s. The difference? Tool and Radiohead have both gotten a lot
better as they've gone along. Few bands mature musically the way they have.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 11 of 151:
|
Jun 28 05:55 UTC 2001 |
resp: 3 - I went and read this article, and I'm still not sure what the
authors mean by "the illusion of ownership" in regard to old/current
practices of selling recordings. What illusion?
resp: 4 - David Friedman's clever notion that authors will live by
lecturing is not a new one: I think it came from Faith Popcorn
earlier. But it's fallacious. Some authors lecture well; some don't,
or dislike it so much that they'd give up authorship first. There's a
limit to how many lectures a practicing author can give and still
write, which means that to live on it, the fees have to be high. But
I've heard a few high-paid lecturers meander on at conferences - John
Perry Barlow was a notably ill-prepared example - and my willingness to
pay big bucks to hear these people burble is strictly limited.
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 151:
|
Jun 28 13:54 UTC 2001 |
My CD budget is around $100/month, which gets me about 7 CDs. I stopped
shopping at Tower when I moved out of Lansing, though that one went to shit
after Mark left anyway.
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 151:
|
Jun 28 14:23 UTC 2001 |
I buy the vast majority of my CDs used.
|
flem
|
|
response 14 of 151:
|
Jun 28 16:23 UTC 2001 |
I apologize if these links aren't new here; I've not been following the
discussion. They're about comic strips rather than online music, but the
argument applies to any content.
part 1
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/icst-5.html
part 2
http://www.thecomicreader.com/html/icst/icst-6/icst-6.html
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 151:
|
Jun 28 16:36 UTC 2001 |
I've read part one, and I like -- but question -- the implication that, if
web-based art is provided at a fair price, people will stop macking it.
Napster (specifically referred to, visually) is, after all, a form of
shoplifting, vitually speaking... its users justify the behavior on the dual
grounds that (a) CDs cost too much and (b) too much of the money goes to
fatcat RIAA guys, but would the virtual shoplifting really stop if prices were
lower? Shareware has been around for years, and most shareware packages have
a reasonably priced registration fee (WinZip is, what, $20 or so?), but most
people I know (including myself) still don't pony up the dough (yes, I'm
admitting I'm a virtual shoplifter, too).
Of course, shareware continues because enough people pony up the registration
fees to make it worth the while of the developers... with the negligible
overhead involved in shareware distribution, especially on-line, the only
thing that money goes to is development time.
|
flem
|
|
response 16 of 151:
|
Jun 28 16:58 UTC 2001 |
Read part 2, and perhaps his followup to the flame war that this apparently
started <pause for link-finding>:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/home/xtra/backlash.html
He addresses just that issue. Briefly, his response is that no, of course
it won't stop pirating, but it will make it less common, because 1) for the
average person, paying a small fee with a few clicks will be less trouble than
going through the effort to get it for free, and 2) people will be less
likely to go to the trouble of providing bandwidth, disk, and access to
things just to save someone else the trouble of paying a few cents.
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 151:
|
Jun 28 17:23 UTC 2001 |
Ah, so, basically what I suggested in para 2 of #15, i.e., that pirating will
continue, but that *enough* people will pony up to make it worth the time,
and the artist will still wind up netting more than going through traditional
publication channels. I'm inclined to agree.
|
krj
|
|
response 18 of 151:
|
Jun 28 19:10 UTC 2001 |
Here's a report claiming that Napster is about to disable the older,
"free" versions of its user software, to force everyone to download
the new security-enhanced software. The report goes on with
an account of what the new Napster pricing system will be, and argues
that it is priced to be a certain failure in the market.
Mp3newswire.net is a kind of amateurish site, and I haven't seen this
stuff reconfirmed elsewhere, so you might take it with a grain of salt
for now. However, this report does confirm my original speculation
from back in February that Napster's fate was to become just a branding
for some minor variant on the BMG centralized download system which
has already been rejected by the market.
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/napstersleep.html
|
krj
|
|
response 19 of 151:
|
Jun 28 20:49 UTC 2001 |
Here's a mainstream media story on the simultaneous crash in both
Napster users and CD sales, which I discussed in vague terms in resp:6 ::
http://www.latimes.com/business/cotown/20010620/t000051058.html
"The numbers raise the issue of whether Napster truly represented the
doomsday for record companies that some industry executives predicted.
And they call into question the RIAA's contention that Napster would
cause 'immeasurable' harm to the business."
..."Slumping sales may have more to do with a comparatively weak release
schedule, a stumbling national economy and the popularity of video games
and other competing forms of entertainment."
|
krj
|
|
response 20 of 151:
|
Jun 28 20:55 UTC 2001 |
Ooops, forgot part of the article I wanted to quote:
"SoundScan research shows total music sales are down about 5.7% from
the same period last year, dragged down by giant drops in sales of the
singles format and cassettes...
"The story with CDs is even more intriguing. According to SoundScan,
CD sales from January through March 4 were up 5.6% from the period a
year earlier. But for the period from March 5 -- just after Napster
began removing copyrighted material from its service -- through June
122, CD sales were behind last year's numbers by 0.9%"
I did not realize (1) the overall crash in music sales is concentrated in
singles and cassettes, and (2) that CD sales so closely correlated to
the imposition of Napster filters.
|
brighn
|
|
response 21 of 151:
|
Jun 28 20:55 UTC 2001 |
So far, 2001 has turned out mediocre musical product. The crashes could easily
be coincidental. They could also be anti-RIAA backlash by Napsterites... it
doesn't demonstrate (on that analysis) that Napster wasn't adversely affecting
Majors buisness, it would only demonstrate that the RIAA's handling of the
issue adversely affected Majors business (which it would... regardless of the
morality of Napster, the RIAA acted like Prime Bastards).
And none of it really changes the morality, ethics, or legality of Napster.
A clear proof that Napster was helping the Majors still wouldn't affect
whether it was moral, ethical, or legal a priori.
|
krj
|
|
response 22 of 151:
|
Jun 28 21:07 UTC 2001 |
Actually it does reflect on the legal situation. All of the legal
fighting so far has been over a preliminary injunction; the argument
for the preliminary injunction is that Napster was causing irreparable
harm to the record companies. Napster has still not had its trial;
I have no idea at this point if Napster is *ever* going to have its
trial.
I propose that one way in which irreparable harm to the record companies
should have been apparent is in diminished sales. The sales figures
we have now show a NEGATIVE correlation between Napster usage and CD
sales; thus no irreparable harm, thus there should have been no
preliminary injunction.
Napster may still be liable for statutory or actual
damages for copyright infringement, but these damages alone do not
warrant a preliminary injunction before the full trial.
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 151:
|
Jun 28 21:50 UTC 2001 |
Mm... I'll grant that it does obviously impact on the irreparable harm issue.
I was think of the intellectual property issue, and had forgotten that that
wasn't the only (or even the major) part of the suit. My mistake.
|
senna
|
|
response 24 of 151:
|
Jun 28 22:09 UTC 2001 |
I'm surprised that there's distress about singles and cassette sales, both
of which are music formats that have been running downhill for years. In my
early high school years, most retail centers still had healthy cassette
sections, but barely anything exists now.
|
brighn
|
|
response 25 of 151:
|
Jun 29 04:57 UTC 2001 |
At this rate, an early prediction of mine -- that cassette will actually be
discontinued before LPs -- may actually bear out.
|
krj
|
|
response 26 of 151:
|
Jun 29 16:09 UTC 2001 |
Beta News reports on a preview they were given of the Real Networks
/MusicNet online distribution system.
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=993552636
"Each MusicNet file will contain code to verify that it may be
played locally or streamed. Upon playback, a central clearinghouse
is contacted to confirm a license has been issued for the song.
If a user does not have the necessary tokens, a notice will appear
prompting for the purchase of more."
As I read the article, it sounds like the playback system requires
a network connection so the software can phone home to see if it
is authorized to play the song file. The user can download song
files freely, but must buy tokens in order to play them.
If I'm right, heaven help them; they have reinvented the Divx system
for DVD licensing, a system which was a spectacular market failure,
almost totally rejected by consumers.
|
krj
|
|
response 27 of 151:
|
Jul 5 02:58 UTC 2001 |
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-07-03-net-radio-usat.htm
"Net Radio Tangos With The Law."
The RIAA is suing a number of "webcasting" firms claiming
that their offerings are more interactive than is allowed
under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Allowing users to
choose what will be streamed to them is a no-no, according
to the RIAA's interpretation of the law.
Lawsuit targets include MTV's SonicNet, Launch, MusicMatch and
Xact. The article says that the RIAA did not take on MSN's
streaming offering, even though it is essentially similar
in functionality to the sued firms.
The article says that most musicians are lining up against the
RIAA this time, in contrast to the Napster suit.
|
brighn
|
|
response 28 of 151:
|
Jul 5 13:57 UTC 2001 |
Of course the RIAA didn't go after MS. It saw what happens when the govt sues
MS, what chance do THEY have?
|
mdw
|
|
response 29 of 151:
|
Jul 6 06:49 UTC 2001 |
It just goes to show the sharks know each other.
|
brighn
|
|
response 30 of 151:
|
Jul 6 13:13 UTC 2001 |
Professional courtesy ("Why don't sharks eat lawyers?" and "Why doesnt the
RIAA sue MSN?")
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 151:
|
Jul 6 18:21 UTC 2001 |
ZDnet has a nice survey article on six foolhardy firms trying to follow
in Napster's footsteps. OK, some of them really aren't "firms."
Let's say, a review of six Napster replacements, plus the state of the
original Napster, which one user now describes as "an elaborate chat
program."
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2782840,00.html
Reviewed are: Aimster, Audiogalaxy, Gnutella, iMesh, OpenNap, and
Kazaa-Music City Morpheus.
|
