How much will YOU pay for your music?
Written: Feb 20 '01
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Free downloads (for now), ease of use.
Cons: Too mainstream, will be limited soon.
The Bottom Line: The napster product is a piece of cake to use, and that is its demise. It has become too mainstream. Now it has to pay (or better, we have to)
|
|
|
| chris_boers's Full Review: Napster |
This is an opinion on the copyright-issue when using Napster. It handles the new pay-for-music principle Napster wants to incorporate. Is it fair, or should music be free to all? I know it is more of an essay, but I'm not quite sure where I should issue that. Once I know that, it might be relocated, so don't shoot...
Ok, here it goes.
The whole Napster controversy is a two-bladed sword.
On one side, musicians have the right to get paid for their effort of making music, and their talent. Don't forget that these artists usually have gone through a very laborous process of getting their 'sound' right, getting their music heard, working the small concert halls, to finally get a contract, and maybe get a CD published.
On the other side, the music industry has too long been able to set the prices to any level they want, without any real threat to their profit. Even now, they try to tell us punters that paying premium for a CD is necessary for developing new talent. I still haven't seen any (financial) proof of this statement.
To better describe the situation, it is good to draw a parallel with PC and console games. These too contain of digital info, sold on a nice CD, with booklet and accompanying artwork (the box).
Also here, a number of games draw most attention and sales, while the rest is highly undervalued.
Why do you think games start off at a high price (about $40), and then within a month or two quickly drop in price? Because by then people don't want to pay premium for those games, if they can get a copy from someone they know with a CD burner, or download it from the internet.
Why are Playstation games still ridiculously expensive after more than a year? The answer is: Because they are far more difficult to copy. Sony has a monopoly on these games, and uses this to overprice them largely.
The same happens with music. As long as there was no real alternative to get the same quality music (I don't take taping into account), prices were high.
Now the music companies are starting to whine, because people have found a way around their monopoly. Although highly illegal, I say 'Serves them right!'
Of course, there should be some balance to this. Music companies should not have a monopoly on distributing music, but also music shouldn't be as freely available as it is right now, since in the end, no more music will be made.
The new payment-scheme of Napster might be the answer. People pay far less for getting quality music, while musicians have a better opportunity to easily issue their music to the masses, without having to sell a minimum number of CD's, thereby bypassing those greedy music companies.
Final statement: Copyright infringement should not and will not be completely banned. However excesses like the free-and-easy-Napster need to somehow be leashed in order for our market-system to work. In my opinion this is what just has happened. Like games, music will always be freely available. It will just get a bit harder. For those that don't want to look for it, pay the price.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
chris_boers
|
|
Reviews written: 5
Trusted by: 0 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.