I didn't think Napster was for me. I didn't see the use in trading music files with other users, seemed to me a waste of bandwidth and storage. Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.
When I couldn't find a copy of Aretha Franklin's "Respect" here in town, I turned to the Web. My search returned some lame midi's, but no .wav or .mp3 files. I wanted a sample of the song for a project I'm developing.
It had to be Aretha Franklin singing "Respect." It could not be a midi. And, as good as she might sound, it could not be A. Wannabe belting out the tune from her basement.
With three days left before what I assumed was the court ordered demise of Napster, I downloaded the latest version of the client. Twenty minutes later, I began my search for Aretha Franklin's "Respect." Found it, 100 copies of the song from 100 different users, and about half of them were good to go. Within an hour of deciding to try Napster, I had the song.
Ten hours later I had many songs, songs I hadn't heard in years, songs I couldn't find even in the old days, and songs by artists who weren't, or aren't mainstream.
How does this hurt the big record companies? How does Napster differ from used record stores? The used CD store owner pays no royalties to the artists. How does Napster differ from making a tape or burning a CD-R for a friend? Aside from joining the Time-Life schlcocky hits of the [choose your decade], how are fans to acquire copies of rare and out of print recordings by their favourite artists?
Vinyl wears out. Cassette tapes have obscenely short life spans. Compact disks are vulnerable to wear and other damage.
You can get a copy of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon at almost any store that sells music, even Zeller's. But how available are disks by newer, lesser known bands? Try finding a new copy of a disk by the Quireboys, or Little Caesar. Try finding new copies of disks by Pointed Sticks.
Tell me, what do record companies lose on artists they no longer support? Tell me, how do artists lose by increased exposure to their work?
|