Yet Another Study Suggests File Sharers Are Frustrated Buyers
from the but-is-it-true? dept
We’ve seen plenty of studies like this one in the past, but here’s yet another in a long list (this one from Australia) suggesting that people who are file sharing unauthorized files are really frustrated consumers, who would pay if there was an actual reason to. That is, it suggests the reason they go to file sharing sites is because they’re easier and more convenient, not just because it’s free. While I’m sure that’s true of some people, I’m not convinced the numbers in this report are anywhere near accurate. This was done as a survey, and surveys are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to having people tell you what they would do, compared to what they actually would do. Frankly, while studies like this do point out that file sharers are often willing to buy — if given the reason — the setup of the survey actually gives the industry a false milestone to work towards. It gets them back to thinking that there really is a market for digital goods, when the economics suggest they should be looking for scarcities, not trying to price infinite goods.
Of course, even with that false hope, the industry still is confused. The response to the study from Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was that the industry won’t “compete” with unauthorized file sharing until it goes away:
“Movie industries obviously want to make their content available online, but they can’t compete currently with a free alternative that’s perpetrated through theft. Once there is a level playing field, I think you’ll begin to see a lot more flexible, innovative business models.”
Talk about getting it backwards. The reason they have to compete is because file sharing is there. And, of course they can and do compete with free alternatives all the time, and have for ages. Saying you can’t compete with free is a lie. Providers compete on things other than price all the time. In fact, saying you can’t compete with free is a direct misunderstanding of what the survey appears to say: it’s saying that consumers are more than will to pay for greater value, but the industry refuses to provide it. Saying you won’t compete until the market changes in your favor is basically signing your own death warrant.
Filed Under: australia, buying, consumers, file sharing, study
Comments on “Yet Another Study Suggests File Sharers Are Frustrated Buyers”
This just in, rampant pirate and theft-advocate Mike Masnick threatens the lives of the MPAA and proud American people! The only defense against such an attack is to go out, right now, and purchase some Blue-Rei(tm) films from a big box store! Watch them on your authorized replay device (with authorized replay cables for your convenience) and don’t even think about looking away during the mandatory commercial advertisement viewing portion.
Re: Re:
I approve this statement! Forced previews are only annoying the first time you watch them, but next year we’ll buy something else! So it will be a totally different set of forced previews! And therefor novel!
Re: Lets make everyone outlaws...
The MPAA has more to fear from their own back catalog and the fact that bean counters with no balls run the studios now. However, that’s another rant.
The industry refuses to produce what the customer wants and actively thwarts methods by which consumers could transform what is currently on sale into what they want. The obvious end result of this is that “digital media” goes underground.
The video equivalent of iTunes would be sued out of existence. This leaves underground tools, or piracy, or buying into Apple’s little iTunes monopoly.
None of those are terribly enticing.
Yet despite all of the whining from copyright-maximalists, the industry continues to do very well and continues to break all sales records.
Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
I missed an episode of a CBS sitcom, and wanted to find it before I watched the next episode. I went to CBS’s site to watch it putting up with their outrages number of repeated adds. Full episodes of that show weren’t available. I went to iTunes to purchase that episode. Although some CBS shows were available on iTunes that one wasn’t. Same story with Amazon. Apparantly the only legal way for me to get the missed episode is to wait until the season DVDs to come out and buy the entire season.
Now why would I be tempted to turn to an illegal site to find that episode?
Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/30/pirate_bay_brokep_interview/page3.html
I’ve spoke to record companies. I went to Sony BMG and proposed we work together on another site. The guy from Sony said: “I feel that you raped me and raped my kids and you raped everybody I know and you’re speaking to my face like you enjoyed it.”
Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
“I feel that you raped me and raped my kids and you raped everybody I know and you’re speaking to my face like you enjoyed it.”
Consider the state of mind of someone making a remark like that.
Being a “rightsholder” is dangerous to your mental health.
Re: Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
“Consider the state of mind of someone making a remark like that.”
The record labels really are an interesting case study. Five stages of grieving, paranoia, rage, Alienation, Cliques, Codependence, Cognitive Dissonance, Delusional Disorders, OCD, etc.
All going on in this weird multi level cyclical way. Where people in the industry come up with a reports to prove what they are selling. Then the industry it self believe those reports. Leading them making the same mistakes in ever larger ways. Its alot like watching the video of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
Well I guess you should just rearrange your life so that it works around their TV schedule, why didn’t you just DVR it?, I mean seriously, those devices are way cheap and 110 percent reliable.
Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
Actually I did DVR it, but they are only about 98% reliable. And this was part of that 2%. Everthing I has set to record for a 2 day period didn’t work. After doing a reset on my DVR it is acting reliable again.
I hope the 110 percent reliable statement was meant as sarcasm.
Re: Re: Re: Being Legal is Sometime Near Impossible
… VCR. 100% reliable if you set it up right.
‘course, the tapes are harder to come by these days, and exactly how it interacts with all the encryption rubbish that gets used…
ahh, the joys of multi-channel, national and regional, free to air tv. *grins*
all it proves is that the consumer isnt willing to pay for scarcity, but rather wants the product at the cheapest possible price and wants it now, no matter how that affects the content companies ability to pay to produce the content. they want the dvd before the movie hits the theaters, they want the music before it is released, and they arent willing to wait. generation disrespect strikes again.
Re: Re:
What is the problem with wanting content at the cheapest possible price and wanting it now? Supply and demand. If people demand and companies don’t supply then people will find what they are looking for in places that may not be preferred by the companies.
It all comes back to companies not listening to what potential customers want.
Re: Re: Re:
no it is the potential customer wanting both the best price point and the best delivery without compromising on either. $1 movies dont exist on the same day that the movie is debuting at $10 in a cineplex. as the masnick points out it is all about selling scarcity. why would the movie companies give up scarcity to satisfy the desires of the people wanting infinite and nearly fress?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
$1 movies dont exist on the same day that the movie is debuting at $10 in a cineplex.
No, but $0 movies do.
why would the movie companies give up scarcity to satisfy the desires of the people wanting infinite and nearly fress?
Nobody is asking them to “give up” scarcity. We’re recommending that they recognize that the scarcity they’re trying to sell doesn’t exist anymore.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is not up to me to compromise, if they want my money they can give me what i want, since when does the consumer bend to the wishes of big business. You talk about generation disrespect?
Tell exactly how much respect are these companies offering the consumer. I feel very disrespected by these silly entertainment companies acting like they are saving the world or something. For years we have been paying good money for products that often times sucked with NO recourse what so ever, No returns on video games once theyv’e been opened, same on CDs and Movies.
I have bought many CDs/tapes/records in my life because of one good song then the rest sucked, hard. Could I get my money back? Absolutely not, that is what is disrespectful.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should anyone have to compromise when parting with THEIR money? They want cheap, good quality and want it now. Supply that demand or they’ll find it elsewhere.
Re: #6
lol you’re so full of shit
Re: Re:
Have you been drinking again?
Re: Re:
never mind that the point in the article was pretty much the exact opposite of that (or at least the result of the survey it was based on was)
Re: Re:
Oh, I’m willing to pay for things. I basically quit buying new DVD’s over the past couple years, because the price skyrocketed. I want to rip the DVD’s to my hard drive, but that is a pain in the @$$. I have over 300 DVD’s in my collection.
Know what I do now, if I want to watch a DVD that’s in my collection that I haven’t ripped myself? I go find a torrent for it. I then now have it on my media center server, that feeds to each TV in my house that has a media center computer connected to it. No fumbling for DVD’s anymore. Does the entertainment industry offer me the ability to easily rip the DVD to an AVI format, or provide it on the DVD for me? Nope! So why pay for it anymore? When I have to spend hours upon hours ripping the DVD and reformatting to save space on my media center drives? And don’t tell me that storage is cheap! Not when you already have 2TB filled and then backed up. Couldn’t even imagine how many TB drives I’d have if it were 1to1 DVD rips.
he consumer isnt willing to pay for scarcity, but rather wants the product at the cheapest possible price and wants it now,
This is what is known as the free market.
, no matter how that affects the content companies ability to pay to produce the content.
and, in the free market, how the content is produced is not the consumers concern.
What you are advocating is some kind of totalitarian state.
Re: Re:
I bet it isn’t actually some kind of totalitarian state as much as it is a totalitarian state. Total control or we won’t make anything!
That’s cool. Plenty, and I do mean plenty, of other people will make things.
“Saying you won’t compete until the market changes in your favor is basically signing your own death warrant.”
Yeah, isnt it wonderful!
Now I know for a fact the labels, TV studios, and movie Studios are doomed. The Australian Federation Against Copyright says that until piracy is stopped they are not prepared to compete online. This shows a total lack of understanding of basic economic theory, and an understanding of their client base. Its very much like the statements made about how if piracy is not stopped in spain the media types would take their marbles and go home. This is a very recent repeating theme in entertainment industry I am unsure if it is the result of Hope derived from ACTA or from despair derived from knowing they are defeated. More than likely its is a battle line being drawn in anticipation of the war they plan to wage using ACTA as their weapon.
Hey buddy
Mike,
Of course they’re frustrated. Who wouldn’t be?
Your religious fervor on this issue continues to amaze me. What forms your belief system that a world of free, “shared” content is the ONLY possible conclusion for our culture/economy, even when common sense and evidence, such as this survey, present another reality? (Don’t say “it’s an economic condition,” because it isn’t. Plenty of people pay for digital content and the future is unseen.)
On the other hand, I appreciate that you will post things, such as this, that contradict your worldview and you’ve definitely assembled a great resource on this site for anyone interested in these issues. But back to me disagreeing with you…
People freeload content because they’re lazy (physically and philosophically) and it’s much easier to take something than it is to work, earn money and pay for it. Pretty obvious. Most consumers see little reason to pay for music because the RIAA lawsuits scorched the terrain of discourse, not because taking content for free is the “right thing to do.” Most people understand that the idea of free content doesn’t add up. You like to point out that Freeloaders spend more on music than the average consumer, but what is the overarching logic of this, that ultimately more Freeloading will equal more money being spent? It’s a very “War is Peace”-type piece of doublethink. Global concert revenues have increased over a billion dollars in the last ten years, okay. That’s great, even if most of that money is going to legacy acts jacking up prices or the Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly (the monopoly you should be talking about). Anyway, in the same time recorded sales have gone down by $8 billion in the US alone. So…freeloading is growing the industry?
And on the confusion about a copy not equalling theft… please explain to me the essential difference between a unlicensed digital copy and a stolen good. You can say, like a petulant child, “It’s just a copy. Nothing has been taken!” But that’s a superficially high-minded form of playing dumb on the issue. The only thing more absurd than saying that every freeloaded track equals a lost sale is to say that no freeloaded tracks equal a lost sale. Reality is somewhere in between the two.
The internet asks us to reach a higher understanding – appropriate an understanding of intellectualized commodities taking into account the rights of both consumers and creators to create a bigger, more vibrant, more democratic cultural space – not to choose to believe everything is suddenly free and then blindly and passively accept its disastrous effects as a state of technological nature.
You’re peddling snake oil here, Mike, and I suppose someone else sold you the stuff along the way. It’s people such as yourself, aka technological ideologues, who continue to hold this debate hostage, preventing any real progress for consumers and creators alike, as if you’re still stuck the year 2001. Time for you to move on.
Re: Hey buddy
Slick troll is slick!
Re: Hey buddy
@CR – well put.
Re: Hey buddy
Most people understand that the idea of free content doesn’t add up.
There is free content all over the place. What “doesn’t add up” about it?
And on the confusion about a copy not equalling theft… please explain to me the essential difference between a unlicensed digital copy and a stolen good. You can say, like a petulant child, “It’s just a copy. Nothing has been taken!”
You just explained the difference. Is there something there you don’t understand?
The only thing more absurd than saying that every freeloaded track equals a lost sale is to say that no freeloaded tracks equal a lost sale. Reality is somewhere in between the two.
I would say they’re equally absurd, personally. 😉 I don’t recall anyone claiming that no freeloaded content ever results in a lost sale though. It seems obvious that it would sometimes. The meaningful question is the net effect of this across a market.
not to choose to believe everything is suddenly free and then blindly and passively accept its disastrous effects as a state of technological nature.
What disastrous effects, exactly?
It’s people such as yourself, aka technological ideologues, who continue to hold this debate hostage, preventing any real progress for consumers and creators alike, as if you’re still stuck the year 2001.
I can’t even make sense of this. Holding the debate hostage? What does that even mean? Do you mean preventing the RIAA from pushing through all its dream laws by raising concerns about their effects? Because if that’s what you’re talking about, that’s a GOOD thing. How does talking about the economics of digital distribution prevent progress? Are you saying these markets are not progressing, and that it’s because of discussing these issues?
Re: There is no money in self-disciplined consumer.
> You like to point out that Freeloaders spend more on music
> than the average consumer, but what is the overarching
> logic of this, that ultimately more Freeloading will equal
> more money being spent? It’s a very “War is Peace”-type
> piece of doublethink.
…no it isn’t.
If you condition people to “do without” then they will.
If you allow people to consume freely, they will. They might even pay.
It’s hard to know that you want something without being exposed to it. Piracy is exposure, just like radio is.
If you are wiley, you can “pirate legally”. That is, you can avoid paying without breaking the law. That makes most of the copyright-maximalist arguments pretty mindless.
They will never pay if they aren’t paying any attention to you anymore because you’ve conditioned them to deprive themselves.
Re: Hey buddy
Of course they’re frustrated. Who wouldn’t be?
Those who adapted to the changing market place?
Your religious fervor on this issue continues to amaze me. What forms your belief system that a world of free, “shared” content is the ONLY possible conclusion for our culture/economy, even when common sense and evidence, such as this survey, present another reality?
An understanding of how basic economics works. And I never said that it is the “ONLY” possible conclusion, but it is, by far, the most likely. Going against fundamental economics needs a big reason. You have no presented one.
(Don’t say “it’s an economic condition,” because it isn’t. Plenty of people pay for digital content and the future is unseen.)
Economic forces are understood (not by you, perhaps, but by others). The fact that plenty of people pay today is meaningless to the future discussion. Plenty of people bought horse carriages at one time too.
People freeload content because they’re lazy (physically and philosophically) and it’s much easier to take something than it is to work, earn money and pay for it
Well, thank goodness you know what goes on in the minds of every human being on earth. Now that that’s settled…
But, seriously, even if that’s true, so what? People are lazy. Ok. That’s not going to change. So why not figure out a business model that takes advantage of that fact rather than spending all this time thinking you can convince people to no longer be lazy?
Most people understand that the idea of free content doesn’t add up.
Again, I’m fascinated by your ability to speak for “most people.” It reminds me of Jon Stewart last night talking about how politicians know What Americans Want:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-5-2010/american-apparently
And if so many people knew it “didn’t add up,” they wouldn’t be doing it.
You like to point out that Freeloaders spend more on music than the average consumer
I don’t remember pointing that out, actually. And, uh, by definition, wouldn’t that statement be impossible? If they were freeloading, they’re not spending. But enough with your silly strawmen.
that ultimately more Freeloading will equal more money being spent?
Again, you seem focused on this word “freeloading.” I can’t respond because I don’t know that word means.
Are you “freeloading” when you visit this site?
It’s a very “War is Peace”-type piece of doublethink.
Yes, just like Adam Smith explaining that protectionism is bad for the industry’s protected was “war is peace” doublethink, right? Just because something is counterintuitive to the ignorant does not make it wrong.
Global concert revenues have increased over a billion dollars in the last ten years, okay. That’s great, even if most of that money is going to legacy acts jacking up prices or the Live Nation/Ticketmaster monopoly (the monopoly you should be talking about). Anyway, in the same time recorded sales have gone down by $8 billion in the US alone. So…freeloading is growing the industry?
The industry is growing, whether it’s because of “freeloading” (again, no definition, so I don’t know) or not is not the issue. It’s a FACT that the industry is growing in every meaningful way: dollars, music made, consumer spend, business spend. So, the industry is growing no matter how you look at it, so I’m not sure what you’re complaint is.
And on the confusion about a copy not equalling theft… please explain to me the essential difference between a unlicensed digital copy and a stolen good. You can say, like a petulant child, “It’s just a copy. Nothing has been taken!” But that’s a superficially high-minded form of playing dumb on the issue. The only thing more absurd than saying that every freeloaded track equals a lost sale is to say that no freeloaded tracks equal a lost sale. Reality is somewhere in between the two.
Reality is that making a copy is not theft. Could it mean that because a copy is available a sale is not made. Yes. Could it mean that a copy leads to a sale. Yes. Could it mean that copies lead to ancillary revenue elsewhere. Yes. Does any of that matter? No. What does the data say? The data says that as file sharing has increased, more music has been created and more money is being made. Is that a causal connection? I have no idea. The evidence is most certainly not clear on that point. But it does suggest that the claims that the industry is in trouble *because* of file sharing seem just a bit off-base.
By the way, I have never said that every unauthorized download does not equal a lost sale, so I really don’t know why you feel the need to set up such strawmen. That seems to be your entire MO, by the way — pretend Mike said stuff he didn’t. Bizarre.
The internet asks us to reach a higher understanding
The internet does no such thing.
not to choose to believe everything is suddenly free and then blindly and passively accept its disastrous effects as a state of technological nature.
What disastrous effects are you talking about, because, again, the evidence there is lacking.
You’re peddling snake oil here, Mike
Prove me wrong. I was convinced of my position with evidence. Prove me wrong with evidence. To date, you have not done so.
technological ideologues, who continue to hold this debate hostage
You can’t be serious. Our side of the debate has been ignored and marginalized. We have no power at all. The debate has been hostage by monopolists and folks who have no understanding of economics or basic evidence, making totally bogus claims about an industry being destroyed when it’s in the best shape it’s ever been in.
preventing any real progress for consumers and creators alike
You should talk to those creators and consumers. They’re in the best shape they’ve ever been in too.
Re: Re: Hey buddy
Again, I’m fascinated by your ability to speak for “most people.”
…
And if so many people knew it “didn’t add up,” they wouldn’t be doing it.
It seems the ability to speak for a large abstract group, their knowledge, motivations, and actions is less uncommon than previously thought.
Re: Re: Re: Hey buddy
Claiming what people know is different than claiming what they do. One is observation, the other is speculation. That’s not to say Mike is necessarily right, but he’s not being hypocritical.
Re: Hey buddy
Oh geeze. I just realized you’re writing a book about these so-called “freeloaders.” What is this? Some part of your publicity campaign to set up strawmen with people who know better and pick fights to sell more books? Brilliant. Count me out from now on.
Riiiiight...
…and car thieves are just drivers who are frustrated by all the registration red tape.
…and art thieves are just frustrated connoisseurs who object to the owner’s monopoly on something he/she paid for.
If it was possible to walk onto a car lot and steal a car knowing that the chance of getting caught was very low, the same people who help themselves to digital content would help themselves to cars. ‘Generation disrespect’ would justify it by saying that transportation is a human right and why should the automakers have a monopoly on it?
Illegal file sharing exists because it’s possible and because it is nearly impossible to prevent, not because it’s the best business model. If it were simple to stop illegal file sharing, that wouldn’t prevent artists from deciding to make their content free with a cwf+rtb business model when THEY felt it was in their interest to do so.
Re: Riiiiight...
Hey, the day I can walk into a car lot and drive away with a perfect copy of a car (that I made with things I already own and pay for at negligible additional cost to myself) I’ll be driving a REAL nice car.
Re: Re: Riiiiight...
I don’t know you so I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt and believe what you say, however, I believe that the major factor for most file sharers is “won’t get caught” and there is no thought given to the argument of “it’s a copy, nothing is lost.”
Re: Re: Re: Riiiiight...
Let’s say you’re absolutely correct. How does that change anything? Moral outrage is an even worse business model than selling CDs.
Re: Re: Re: Riiiiight...
Here is the path to file-sharing:
I saw the movie in the theatre, bought the VHS, bought the DVD, bought the DVD with special features, and now they’ve released the Blu-ray.
I buy an album based on the single and it is shite. Sorry, no refund.
I buy a computer game and when I get home, it won’t run on my computer, even though I “intall all the latest drivers” or I lose my internet connection and it won’t play. Sorry, no refund.
I go to Blockbuster, but they never have what I want, I get charged ridiculous late fees, and the prices keep going up.
I subscribe to Netflix but they keep sending me no. 39 on my list because 1 through 38 are always out.
I use Redbox but it keeps breaking down and the price keeps going up.
The prices in the Playstation Store never seem to go down, in sharp contrast to standard real-world supply and demand, and I buy a game (that had no demo) and it is shite. Sorry, no refund.
___________ OR ____________
I wait a few hours and I’ve downloaded whatever I want.
Don’t get me wrong. I still do all those things above and probably spend the same amount on entertainment as I did in the past. I just consume way more.
I buy music downloads from Amazon because the company has made it easy. When the price is one I agree with, usually $2.99 for a complete album download, the process really is one-click.
Frostwire music downloads are often 128-bit files. I prefer a higher bitrate. The movies are also mislabled too often to make it worth bothering. What moron uploads Medea Goes to Jail and labels it I, Robot? I haven’t had any particular success with torrents – there was a software program I wanted to try before I bought it, and the estimated d/l time was something like 20 hours. It was a better investment of my time just to buy the damned program.
Re: Re:
‘What moron uploads Medea Goes to Jail and labels it I, Robot?’
They’re called trolls.
Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
File sharing of movies or music (theft), does not increase competition. There is no competition at all, there are not competing products.
All file sharing does is force the companies and artists that create the product that you desire so much, to compete with a free and illegal version of their OWN PRODUCT.
Then it’s up to the consumer to decide if they want to be honest and pay a fair price for a product they desire, or to simply download it for free.
And if you do not see value in the product you do not want it, the fact you do want it mean you see value in it and desire it. The file downloaders desire it but are not willing to pay for it.
I desire many things, that I cannot afford to own too, that does not give me the right to take it.
But they certainly should not be forced to “compete” with a free version of their own product.
Clearly, that is not competition at all. so what is a lie again ?
What making many copies available of a product means that it’s easier and cheaper for someone to download an illegal copy of the product they want, (by the SAME manufacturer or producer of that produce).
Even diamons would be 20cents each if they were as common as gravel.
So it’s an enforced price war for the creators of the product against them, using their own product (an illegal but free version) against them.
So there is no competition, and if you claim there is what is the alternative product that is the competing product.
(apart from the illegal, but free version of itself).
Re: Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
Or not theft, both literally and legally.
Free digital distribution vs costly shiny plastic disc distribution.
It forces companies who compete entirely on the basis of who provides the best service for creating copies of a work to live up to the fact that their job can be done at zero cost and by people who used to be customers.
There’s no need to pay for copies when the ability to copy something is priced at zero.
That’s a very accurate summary of supply and demand there. I hope that understanding will lead you to further realisations about basic economics, as it’s a very promising start.
Zero cost copy making vs enforced payment of zero cost copy making.
Re: Its not a competition - devaluation by comonality -
All file sharing does is force the companies and artists that create the product that you desire so much, to compete with a free and illegal version of their OWN PRODUCT.
The trouble here is figuring out which market your in and what you’re actually selling. What the music industry is trying to sell is copies of audio recordings and distribution thereof. In the past this was done with plastic disks at real cost and it wasn’t easily duplicated. Now we’ve moved beyond that and copies AND distribution are both done quickly and cheaply, to the point that anyone can do it at effectively zero cost. It’s like trying to sell sand in the dessert.
What they SHOULD be doing to re-focussing on the things they can sell, *but aren’t*. No one currently pays [Big Name Band Here] directly to create new music, but why not? That’s a capability that they have which can’t easily be duplicated and which they effectively have complete control over. Once the content has been created, duplication and distribution are trivial and can be left to the consumers. And that’s just one option of many.
And if you do not see value in the product you do not want it, the fact you do want it mean you see value in it and desire it. The file downloaders desire it but are not willing to pay for it.
Value and price are not the same thing. Value can contribute to the threshold people are willing to pay, but supply and demand, basic market forces, are what actually determine price. Just because I’m WILLING to pay a lot for something doesn’t mean that’s where the price will end up — and further doesn’t mean I won’t try to minimize the price I muat pay, since a higher value-to-price ratio is a better deal to me, regardless.
Frustrated Buyers
Way back in Napster days the availability of the entire history of music on the Net reawakened a lack of interest in music framed, shaped and marketed to mass tastes that weren’t mine. Music file sharing has an educational and cultural side that few defend. The big CD marketeers have been ignoring small, esoteric tastes since the advent of the industry. The content owners can’t make money unless the tastes are mass. But the river of tunes that began with Napster was and is an educational lesson to consumer cultural sensibilities that had gradually been worn away by ceaseless, exploitive marketing. If it hadn’t been for Napster and the internet, I wouldn’t even known of the great variety of music that has existed during my entire history. I believe the internet has increased knowledge of and interest in music.
really frustrated consumers
not hardly, they want it free, bottom line, did I mention they want it free? why pay when you can download for free