ingrassia/colovini on 28 Jul 2000 04:05:12 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> Terror in Tune Town |
> -----Mensaje original----- > De: Øivind Idsø > Enviado el: Jueves, 27 de Julio de 2000 08:33 p.m. > Para: microsound > Asunto: [microsound] Re: More on Napster > > > anechoic wrote: > > > yesterday Napster was ordered to shut down its operations...what do the > > people on this list think about this? > > There's a lot to be said about this, actually, but just a few superficial > notes on the subject (I'm sure there are objections): > > * the most annoying part of the RIAA/Lars Ulrich argument is "we're losing > money". They aren't, of course. The free market (pun intended) that arises > out of the Napster platform is a market based on exactly that: > it's free. In > other words, if people were interested in the music they're > downloading, but > had to pay for it, a very large part of this market would be > erased...because people can't afford to be part of it. And so the market > that RIAA wants to exploit for even greater profit margins would evaporate > by the very move that's supposed to eliminate and compensate for their > so-called 'losses'...together with the marketing effect that the Napster > community represents, or might represent. > > * analogies are very popular within the MP3 discourse, and one of the most > common is: "Downloading from Napster is just like walking into a record > store and stealing a CD." The correct analogy should be: "Downloading from > Napster is just like walking into a record store to borrow a CD, > go home and > copy it, and then return the original to the store about one hour later." > The implications of the difference between these two analogies is quite > fundamental; the first one ignores the non-materiality of MP3 > sharing, while > the second one acknowledges it. This kind of stealing is quite different > from stealing a pack of cigarette, I think, since you're stealing what we > today call "intellectual property" -- and just that. This is where the > discussion concerning said intellectual property, what it is, who > should own > how much of it etc. begins. > > * (un)necessary elaboration on the above: once a clone of a CD has been > made, the thing that's being stolen is the artist's profit and the > production costs for the recording. The jewel case, distribution, the disc > itself, the profit margins of the label, the many channels/middle men > between production and retail, the cover art etc. is still intact > and hasn't > been touched by the MP3 pirate (promotion is a grey area :) . > > * once the music has been liberated from corporate conglomeracy it should > be possible to design a kind of pay-pr-download interface; since > everything > else besides recording costs (in the case of home recording this factor is > very often very small) and artists profit has been eliminated the > price pr. > CD should be reduced drastically. I would gladly pay fx. $3-4 pr. > CD, which > makes for a considerable (potential) income for most artists as > compared to > the average royalty % s/he receives today -- pay with VISA, download, burn > the CD yourself. Sidebar: the normal price for a CD in Norway is $22. Of > course your average teenager/student/whatever can't afford to buy several > CDs a month (like s/he wants to) with a price like that. > > * Napster has been quite useful for tracking down recordings that aren't > easily available anymore > > * Lars Ulrich in a BBC interview concerning Napster, sitting in > front of his > gigantic pool, saying "we're losing money". Again: they aren't. They're > losing an audience. Big difference. Lars should care. > > * maybe this is Utopia speaking from deep within my idealistic self, but > still: knowing that the tens of thousands of people that were downloading > "my latest CD" (yes, this is definitely Utopia speaking) for free via > Napster would NOT get to listen to it if they had to pay $22, I > would go for > the Napster part. Are we making music first and foremost to make money, or > are we making music first and foremost to (in lack of a better word) > 'communicate'? This is naive, I know, but still; why is that you don't > charge your friends for a copy of your own music? > > > personally I think its really sad... > > Me too. > > /Øivind/ _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold