>
> Regarding the Metallica/Napster debacle, I have made the following
>observations, many I'm sure you've all made yourselves...
>
>1)- Using Napster is no different than swapping CD's with friends to check
>stuff out. If I can get sued for using Napster, then on the same token...
>
>2)- Am I going to be sued by TORO if I loan my riding mower to my next
>door neighbor?
>
While I fall on the Napster side of the debate, I do think there
is a difference between loaning CDs or your Toro lawnmower to your friend
and sharing songs using Napster. The main difference is that when you
loan your CD you can't then both listen to the music at the same time
(assuming you're not in the same room). With Napster, thousands of people
can get a copy of the CD and listen to it at the same time that you
listen to your original.
Loaning your Toro has the same problem. You can't both cut your
grass at the same time. So, this argument doesn't really help much in
the eyes of the music industry.
But, just for fun, let's take this thought experiment a bit
further. Let's say that you had a replicator which could make a duplicate
of your Toro lawnmower. Now, your friend needs to mow his lawn so you
rip a copy of the Toro and give him one. :) The other people in the
neighborhood need to mow their lawns so you do the same thing. Then,
you put the Toro up on the net and everyone starts replicating their
own version of the mower. Toro isn't going to like it. Once this
replicator techonology is everywhere, why would anyone buy the mower
from Toro? They can just download it for free from you. There will
always be honorable people out there who will only buy from the
original creator, but that may not be enough.
The funny thing about a replicator (or the internet combined
with digitized music) is that it really changes how people use
property. If something is so easy to copy that I can just say "here,
take one" then a lot of people will see that as a reasonable thing
to do. Just like they see it as reasonable to loan their single copy
of the CD or mower to their friend. It's convenient, it's cheap, and
it's fun. In many ways, I see this kind of approach to software and other
digitized information as inevitable. The government and corporations will
try to legislate it away (and perhaps they'll succeed) but it's really how
people want to do things -- they want to be free to share what they have
with others. The internet and programs like Napster make it easy to do.
The problem is, how do we reward the people who came up with
the product in the first place if you can just get it for free? How
can Metallica (or any new band) strike it rich if only a few people
will pay for their product? I think that most of us would like to
see their favorite bands make a lot of money (though not necessarily
the music industry). How can this happen?
Well, there's the idea a few people have proposed of including
a "value added service" with the CD (such as artwork or signed copies).
Or, they could get all their money from live performances. These
answers seem somewhat unsatisfactory and only make more work for the
band. It's a tough problem.
One thing that we have to keep in mind here is that only a
very, very small percentage of bands ever get wealthy off of their
music. And only a slightly higher percentage of bands make enough
to live on from their CD sales alone.
Most of us know how little a band actually gets from each CD.
From the bands I've talked to, they make less than $1 (usually much less)
per CD sold. Plus, the initial proceeds for their CD sales go toward
the costs of the recording studio and many other expenses that the
record companies require that they pay for.
So, if we eliminated the record companies and instead sold
entire albums online for $1 or $2 then it's possible that a lot more
people would make the purchase even if they can get it for free.
The bands could sell actual CDs for a few dollars more (to cover
the expense of creating and shipping the CDs) if people wanted the
"value added" version. This way, the bands would make as much
money as the did before per album sale (maybe even more). THe
only question would be whether they'd sell as many albums. I
have a feeling that most bands (the ones who aren't super popular)
would actually sell at least as many albums.
So, what about distribution and advertising? How will a
band get their music heard if they're not being promoted by
a big label? Well, it's probably true that many big bands wouldn't
get as well promoted, but I think that many small bands would be better
promoted. As others have mentioned, Napster and MP3s are a great way
to get your music heard. and if your music is heard and liked,
it will become popular via word of mouth. If someone heard
a great song by an unknown band they might take the time to visit
their web site and may even pay $1 or $2 to download the album.
I know that I own over 700 CDs mostly because of the number of
tapes I traded with friends and over the internet. I was able to
listen to cool music that I wouldn't have ever even heard otherwise
(a lot of obscure prog-rock for example) and then went out and
bought the CD. I've done the same with songs I've sampled on
Napster. People are willing to support bands they like, especially
if it's only a few dollars to do so.
Anyway, the debate will rage on and I think the corporations
are going to be fighting tooth and nail for a long time. I think
they'll probably prevail in the short term. It will be interesting
to see what happens farther out.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:07:30 EST