Comment Re:Napster users are the fans (Score 2) 530
I would never go out and buy most of the music I download, I'll admit it, but the reason is I can't afford $15+ for each piece of music I want to hear.
This is a poor excuse but it's better than ``I wouldn't because I'd rather not.'' Unfortunately the rest of your comment invalidates this. If you don't think the band deserves the money, then don't listen to their music. Period. I'm not getting into legality or whether or not current IP law is any good (it's not, and I'm even an artist who favors copyright law), I'm getting into morality.
Sure it's easy to dismiss and say I believe in complete freedom of information, but also remember that this kind of freedom of information means I should be able to close the source of GPL'ed code, distribute binaries and say, ``Fuck free software, I'm going to do what I want. This code wants to be free for me to do with as I please.'' That's where morality comes into it. Whether or not there's copyright law, you should still respect it. Remember, the same rules apply to music and to GPL'ed code. Treating them as any different would be hypocrisy.
You might not mind GPL violations, but I hope anybody else reading this post understands this. You say software and music are both ``information that deserves to be free.'' Truly free code is public domain and does not have the same restrictions that the GPL does to ensure it remains free. Everyone should bear this in mind.
They make their money from performing for their fans.
Hahaha! No they don't! I forget which /.'er originally said it, but I'll ask you. Ever wonder why musicians always seem to tour right after they release a new album? Guess why... Go on. It's so people will buy the CD. Selling albums is how musicians make money.
If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be.
Yet another person who likes to criticize an artist's integrity if said artist feels the least bit concerned about finances. You know most musicians out there aren't rich and successfuly megastars. Everybody still seems to think this for some reason, though. Musicians usually have 2 jobs: music and something to pay for music. Music is fricking expensive. Your typical 4-piece rock-n-roll bar band that you support by paying a $7 cover fee to see probably has $4-5k worth of equipment on stage. That's just on stage. Doesn't include whatever it costs to make an album. You think $7 per person covers it? Sorry, venues are just as bad as record labels. I've seen bands lug $6k in equipment that they paid for by working at Burger King, play a show in front of 60 people for 45 minutes, and walk away with $20. Not each. Total. And they had a little table at the back and would periodically draw attention to it so that people would buy the CD.
I would not mind at all paying 50cents for a song, they get less than that anyway. Perhaps a pay per use to a certain extent would be good also.
On the first point you're right to the best of my knowledge. On the second point, though, I really have to wonder if you're trolling. Pay-per-use is bad. As a capitalist, I think it should be an option if somebody wants to try it, but stay away from pay-per-use philosophy. It's nice for artists, but it is bad for society. Your example about the try-before-you-buy method, though, sounds good. Unfortunately, Napster is already available. Nobody's going to log onto some website and do this by rationalizing that it's barely anything and it won't make a difference, that Napster's the same thing but free, or both.
The system has to be accepted by the users to make it work.
This is 100% correct. Piracy will occur only when people don't find the current model acceptable. Some people won't want to pay for anything, but most believe in supporting artists they like to some extent. The trick is to get a healthy balance where artists are compensated enough to cover their expenses while fans benefit from the artists actually being able to produce their work. That's something most people not familiar with music (or most other forms of publishing for that matter) - most artists are not even moderately successfuly. Most of them struggle and it costs a lot of money to reach people, which is why most artists have jobs rather than make art day in and day out.
To be honest, I think musicians will need to offer incentives to purchase the CD because Napster will be almost impossible to shut down. First of all, it is wrong to shut down Napster. Dr. Dre had the best idea by going after copyright infringers because they are to blame, not Napster. Still, that's kind of tacky. Copyright laws are really not designed for individual people making a single copy, they're designed for shops that mass produce unauthorized copies (think Hong Kong). Whether or not Napster is moral, though, the music industry will have to adapt. My suggestion is to first legitimize Napster by fixing copyright law back to 12 years. This will put a lot of work in the public domain and would definitely be beneficial to society (but is kind of unrelated to Napster). The second is to further legitimize Napster (and AFAI can tell, was along the lines of their original plan anyway) -- make Napster in such a way that it is driven from advertising dollars, an appropriate proportion of which is paid to the RIAA in the same manner as a radio station. This way, all that trading is legitimate. People might not like the fact that Napster would have to log which songs are downloaded, but that's the price you pay for free music. The third and final change I think would help is for the music industry to include more goodies with CDs -- give people an incentive to buy the CD. Make it worth that $14-$18. Lot's of inserts, interviews, interactive CD-ROM content, etc. Stuff that you can't get from Napster.
---
This is a poor excuse but it's better than ``I wouldn't because I'd rather not.'' Unfortunately the rest of your comment invalidates this. If you don't think the band deserves the money, then don't listen to their music. Period. I'm not getting into legality or whether or not current IP law is any good (it's not, and I'm even an artist who favors copyright law), I'm getting into morality.
Sure it's easy to dismiss and say I believe in complete freedom of information, but also remember that this kind of freedom of information means I should be able to close the source of GPL'ed code, distribute binaries and say, ``Fuck free software, I'm going to do what I want. This code wants to be free for me to do with as I please.'' That's where morality comes into it. Whether or not there's copyright law, you should still respect it. Remember, the same rules apply to music and to GPL'ed code. Treating them as any different would be hypocrisy.
You might not mind GPL violations, but I hope anybody else reading this post understands this. You say software and music are both ``information that deserves to be free.'' Truly free code is public domain and does not have the same restrictions that the GPL does to ensure it remains free. Everyone should bear this in mind.
They make their money from performing for their fans.
Hahaha! No they don't! I forget which
If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be.
Yet another person who likes to criticize an artist's integrity if said artist feels the least bit concerned about finances. You know most musicians out there aren't rich and successfuly megastars. Everybody still seems to think this for some reason, though. Musicians usually have 2 jobs: music and something to pay for music. Music is fricking expensive. Your typical 4-piece rock-n-roll bar band that you support by paying a $7 cover fee to see probably has $4-5k worth of equipment on stage. That's just on stage. Doesn't include whatever it costs to make an album. You think $7 per person covers it? Sorry, venues are just as bad as record labels. I've seen bands lug $6k in equipment that they paid for by working at Burger King, play a show in front of 60 people for 45 minutes, and walk away with $20. Not each. Total. And they had a little table at the back and would periodically draw attention to it so that people would buy the CD.
I would not mind at all paying 50cents for a song, they get less than that anyway. Perhaps a pay per use to a certain extent would be good also.
On the first point you're right to the best of my knowledge. On the second point, though, I really have to wonder if you're trolling. Pay-per-use is bad. As a capitalist, I think it should be an option if somebody wants to try it, but stay away from pay-per-use philosophy. It's nice for artists, but it is bad for society. Your example about the try-before-you-buy method, though, sounds good. Unfortunately, Napster is already available. Nobody's going to log onto some website and do this by rationalizing that it's barely anything and it won't make a difference, that Napster's the same thing but free, or both.
The system has to be accepted by the users to make it work.
This is 100% correct. Piracy will occur only when people don't find the current model acceptable. Some people won't want to pay for anything, but most believe in supporting artists they like to some extent. The trick is to get a healthy balance where artists are compensated enough to cover their expenses while fans benefit from the artists actually being able to produce their work. That's something most people not familiar with music (or most other forms of publishing for that matter) - most artists are not even moderately successfuly. Most of them struggle and it costs a lot of money to reach people, which is why most artists have jobs rather than make art day in and day out.
To be honest, I think musicians will need to offer incentives to purchase the CD because Napster will be almost impossible to shut down. First of all, it is wrong to shut down Napster. Dr. Dre had the best idea by going after copyright infringers because they are to blame, not Napster. Still, that's kind of tacky. Copyright laws are really not designed for individual people making a single copy, they're designed for shops that mass produce unauthorized copies (think Hong Kong). Whether or not Napster is moral, though, the music industry will have to adapt. My suggestion is to first legitimize Napster by fixing copyright law back to 12 years. This will put a lot of work in the public domain and would definitely be beneficial to society (but is kind of unrelated to Napster). The second is to further legitimize Napster (and AFAI can tell, was along the lines of their original plan anyway) -- make Napster in such a way that it is driven from advertising dollars, an appropriate proportion of which is paid to the RIAA in the same manner as a radio station. This way, all that trading is legitimate. People might not like the fact that Napster would have to log which songs are downloaded, but that's the price you pay for free music. The third and final change I think would help is for the music industry to include more goodies with CDs -- give people an incentive to buy the CD. Make it worth that $14-$18. Lot's of inserts, interviews, interactive CD-ROM content, etc. Stuff that you can't get from Napster.
---
