Cat fight.....
Jul 10 '00 (Updated Jul 22 '00)
In this corner weighing in at several tons is an over bloated industry built on a corruption that's been agreed between industry rivals. In the other corner weighing in at 60 lbs soaking wet is a new idea that gains strength by undermining the rights of the old establishment.
On the surface the argument is simple, cut and dry. RIAA is upset because crooked people use Napster to get their music for free rather than pay what they're asking for it (notice I didn't say what they're due, more on that latter). If the RIAA wins we have the right to sue the city we got mugged in because they couldn't keep criminals from using the city.
I could go into the try before you buy and I could just tape it off the radio rhetoric, but that’s all it is. Taking a product you didn't pay for with no intention of ever paying for is stealing. But it doesn't really matter.
Frankly, the RIAA is doomed to lose this case. We have a place in Duluth called the Last Place on Earth that sells drug pari... sorry, novelty pipes. The long and the short of it is, just because people use their product for illegal purposes they aren't responsible for the crime. We can't arrest an auto manufacturer because I sped in his car, or ran someone over. Following the same logic they can't sue Napster. Napster does not put any of the songs on the list, they do not have any of the songs on their server, and frankly putting something up there is not illegal. Downloading it is.
Am I over exaggerating the situation? Today, yes. Tomorrow no. The fact of the matter is this, if someone can think it, someone will try it. Especially when it comes to suing someone for money (how hot is your McDonalds coffee?).
But the surface image is never all the story is it? What is the RIAA really upset about? Probably (more like exactly, but I have no proof), MP3's. Why? Because they don't exist. You can't sell a product that doesn't exist. They are, as close to pure music as you can get. An insubstantial concept that takes up no physical space, and yet you can hear it and enjoy it. They copy with minimal effort and anyone with a semi recent PC and the net has access to them. Summary, its a product that can be controlled by users, and not the industry. Because anyone can make, mass-produce, and distribute they realize the fact that a new paradigm is upon us, and they're going the way of the dinosaur unless they change as fast as the technology.
Which is of course impossible, since the technology doesn't change as fast as the technology. I know that sounds wrong but think for a moment and you'll see I'm right. Your PC is out of date before you take it off the shelf and its slipping quickly into inadequacy.
Before everyone jumps on the thought of encryption software being encoded in the MP3's to keep people from pirating them, let me remind you about how successful it was when the movie industry tried that with DVD. It didn't fly. Not to mention that the software to create unencrypted MP3s is already out there, why would I switch?
And that's just talking about RIAA's business model. Lets talk about their current business practices. Remember what I said before about asking for what they deserve? Government inquiries have been made about the over inflated prices of CD's. That’s right the manufacturers are ripping us off, we just haven't seen any action taken against them, because well, what are we going to do? Exactly, sit and take it. So now, that someone has a better scam going they're screaming bloody murder. Cry me a river. Charge what you're supposed to and I'll have a little more sympathy.
Lets brake down the average 16 dollar CD. We'll presume a 500,000 copy initial distribution. This means that every state gets about 10,000 copies, some more some less. So every dollar charged earns 500,000 after expenses. So lets look at those expenses. About 80 cents to the artist. More if they have a good agent. So lets average at 1.00. I'll give them 2.00 to advertise each album (that's a million for advertising, since they don't do TV spots we'll presume its for the videos that never make it). How bout another dollar for the studio to record the thing. The CD itself is 60 cents, plus some for printing. We'll jack it up to a dollar per CD, just to keep things even? Ok, I'm up to 5 dollars now, and I'm at a loss. I think I was fair on the price distribution, and even if I'm not completely on, most of those are a one time expense, while revenue keeps rolling in from best of albums, re releases, and putting a favorite track on the next album. So where do the other 13 dollars go? Some go to bands that don't deserve an album. Ok, another 5 for that. That gives them the leeway to only make 50% of their product to have some actual quality. Imagine any other industry trying that. I'll even throw in 2 bucks so they can make a million each album. 12 dollars folks. What does that other 6 dollars mean to them? 3 million dollars on a 500,000 copy run, in addition to the million I already presumed they'd take.
Where does a lot of this money go? Full sized poster tubes to send out one 8 1/2 by 11 inch flyer. 50 tapes of some no name hip hop band being sent to radio stations that don't play hip hop. Those are just two instances I can verify. My friends who work at the radio stations tell me that’s not the half of it.
Who is the main user of Napster? College kids. How much money did you have in college? Sure some people dedicated their lives to buying CD's for the rest of the dorm to copy, but most of us were already pirates during that time anyway.
I look back to before CD's when software piracy was a little more prevalent (and actually took some skill). Did I have pirated Commodore 64 software? You bet. If I could afford to buy the game did I? You bet. Did I avoid purchasing some things because I already knew I didn't like them? Yeah. Did that hurt the company? Yep. Do I feel sorry that the company hurts because the put out an inferior product. Nope.
But lets look at something I said there. Did I buy it if I could afford it? Yes. Why, well, frankly a copy is a copy. Its never quite as good as the original. Their is always something a little defective about it. Something that's always missing or off, can't always put my finger on it, but it's there.
The other thing the RIAA needs to realize is the US is an object oriented society. MP3's will no sooner destroy the CD than the computer will lead to a paperless office. When they buy something, the operative word is 'thing'. They want a solid object they can look at and touch, and show to their friends. You'll never have that with a downloaded mp3.
While I'm here, I do have a problem with the Metalica issue vs. Napster. Ok, I'll go with 'You have to do it for yourself, if you're doing it for the fans you lose the purity'. But if you don't balance the load boys, then you lose the fans, and being pure doesn't mean much while you're hungry.
But that's not my rant, my rant is this. Everyone got in trouble for downloading a song that (at the moment) was not being distributed on a CD. Let me repeat that because it sounds vaguely important. Metalica down loaders were persecuted for 'stealing' a song that didn't commercially exist yet. Now I'm drifting into a gray section of the law with this flow of logic (remember if someone can think it someone will do it), but hear me out. If when something isn't being printed (CD or otherwise) you're allowed to copy it for archival purposes. You're not allowed to distribute for profit, but sharing the information is protected by law. I realize this was meant to be for books and music that was in production and has since ceased, but why can't the law be applied conversely, with people who have the song when the CD arrives being expected to delete it or buy the CD? Would people really do that? I'm not that naive, but I do think their friends who heard it would have purchased it the same as if they had heard it on the radio.
In the end the winner of suit is definitely going to be Napster. The RIAA, however, will eventually find an angle to use MP3's to their advantage. If they want to survive that is.
UPDATE: 7/22
http://www.zdtv.com/zdtv/zdtvnews/internet/story/0,3685,818,00.html
ZDtv (at the link above) told a story about a new study, implicating that Napster actually increases CD sales as it is free advertising for the bands. Going further to point out that the RIAA's studies did not include the nose dive CD's had taken in such areas shortly before Napster took hold.
Evolve or Die RIAA.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Xiag
|
|
Member: C. Grimm
Location: Superior, Wi (near Duluth, MN)
Reviews written: 107
Trusted by: 50 members
About Me:
Starving game developer. Known for poignant rants, and skewed looks at our modern lives.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.