Ask the Right Question
During my first year of college, Napster broke onto the scene. Suddenly, every single student with a computer (which, I think, was everyone except me) was able to get their hands on just about any song or album just by typing it into a program and downloading it.
Soon thereafter, Lars Ulrich, the drummer in Metallica, spoke up, claiming that Napster was a threat to the control that musician's should be able to retain over their music. Suddenly, an intense debate erupted over whether or not people should be allowed to use their computers to share music with one another.
Lars Ulrich had a point, and a good one, but he got it wrong when he first spoke up. He claimed that people should be forced to pay for music, so if they wanted to listen to songs, they should buy the CDs and not download them illegally. People responded by calling Lars and his Metallica buddies "greedy", and painted them as a profiteering band without any artistic values. He probably realized his mistake later, and he tried to clarify that he wasn't interested in money, but rather in ensuring that artists retain creative control over the music they produce. But the damage was done.
The problem is that Lars Ulrich sparked entirely the wrong debate between the music industry and the people who listen to it. The question should never have been, "Should we let people share music with each other, even if they haven't paid for it?" That muddied the real issue. Music fans argued yes, they ought to be allowed to, taking a decidedly less-than-selfless stance on the issue. The RIAA said no, and tried really hard to get Napster shut down as quickly as possible, which made music fans hate them. It polarized everyone.
We did not need Lars Ulrich appealing to music listeners, telling them they had to pay for music. We needed Lars Ulrich on our side, using his position in the music industry on behalf of music fans everywhere, to tell the record companies, "This is the future of music distribution. In the coming years, people will buy music downloads on their computers, not walk to the store to buy CDs. We need to set up a way so that people can buy all the music they want, legally, using an officially sanctioned Napster that we create."
The question shouldn't have involved the rest of us. The RIAA should have asked itself: in the face of the future, how are we going to leverage an extremely cost efficient distribution network to help people get the music that they want? If they had carefully considered that question, they would have continued making money, they would have kept the music artists happy, and we, as music fans, would probably have abandoned Napster and switched to the RIAA's new means of selling us music.
Ideally, they would have done it long before Napster. They should have. It's the classic example of a "stuck" company that's asleep at the helm.
They didn't consider the story from the student's perspective. If you're a record executive and you live in the suburbs, you get in your Mercedes-Benz and drive to buy a CD at Circuit City or Best Buy. Simple and convenient. From that standpoint, it ain't broke, so there's nothing to fix.
During my freshman year at college, I experienced a much different story. I was in the dorms, surrounded by students who loved music, passionately. None of us had cars. The closest music store was a Tower Records that was a good twenty minute walk from the dorm where I lived. A CD at Tower Records was five dollars more than it was at the Best Buy, which was three miles up the road off campus. Picture trying to get to either of these places, on foot or by bus, in the middle of a frigid January, and finding that the CD you came to buy is out of stock, and having to turn around and go home empty-handed.
If you present that story, it's obvious that something's broken.
To a student in the dorms, Napster was all the music you could ever want, without having to venture out of your dorm room. You could get just one song off of an album, so you didn't need to buy the entire Destiny's Child CD just to hear the song "Survivor". And if you thought "Bombs Over Baghdad" was a great song, you didn't have to commit to buying an entire Outkast CD before determining whether or not you'd like the rest of their songs.
It's almost ten years later, and finally, it's possible to buy music using iTunes, or using the DRM-free Amazon MP3. It took longer than it should have because everyone was busy arguing the "correct" answer to the wrong question.
Soon thereafter, Lars Ulrich, the drummer in Metallica, spoke up, claiming that Napster was a threat to the control that musician's should be able to retain over their music. Suddenly, an intense debate erupted over whether or not people should be allowed to use their computers to share music with one another.
Lars Ulrich had a point, and a good one, but he got it wrong when he first spoke up. He claimed that people should be forced to pay for music, so if they wanted to listen to songs, they should buy the CDs and not download them illegally. People responded by calling Lars and his Metallica buddies "greedy", and painted them as a profiteering band without any artistic values. He probably realized his mistake later, and he tried to clarify that he wasn't interested in money, but rather in ensuring that artists retain creative control over the music they produce. But the damage was done.
The problem is that Lars Ulrich sparked entirely the wrong debate between the music industry and the people who listen to it. The question should never have been, "Should we let people share music with each other, even if they haven't paid for it?" That muddied the real issue. Music fans argued yes, they ought to be allowed to, taking a decidedly less-than-selfless stance on the issue. The RIAA said no, and tried really hard to get Napster shut down as quickly as possible, which made music fans hate them. It polarized everyone.
We did not need Lars Ulrich appealing to music listeners, telling them they had to pay for music. We needed Lars Ulrich on our side, using his position in the music industry on behalf of music fans everywhere, to tell the record companies, "This is the future of music distribution. In the coming years, people will buy music downloads on their computers, not walk to the store to buy CDs. We need to set up a way so that people can buy all the music they want, legally, using an officially sanctioned Napster that we create."
The question shouldn't have involved the rest of us. The RIAA should have asked itself: in the face of the future, how are we going to leverage an extremely cost efficient distribution network to help people get the music that they want? If they had carefully considered that question, they would have continued making money, they would have kept the music artists happy, and we, as music fans, would probably have abandoned Napster and switched to the RIAA's new means of selling us music.
Ideally, they would have done it long before Napster. They should have. It's the classic example of a "stuck" company that's asleep at the helm.
They didn't consider the story from the student's perspective. If you're a record executive and you live in the suburbs, you get in your Mercedes-Benz and drive to buy a CD at Circuit City or Best Buy. Simple and convenient. From that standpoint, it ain't broke, so there's nothing to fix.
During my freshman year at college, I experienced a much different story. I was in the dorms, surrounded by students who loved music, passionately. None of us had cars. The closest music store was a Tower Records that was a good twenty minute walk from the dorm where I lived. A CD at Tower Records was five dollars more than it was at the Best Buy, which was three miles up the road off campus. Picture trying to get to either of these places, on foot or by bus, in the middle of a frigid January, and finding that the CD you came to buy is out of stock, and having to turn around and go home empty-handed.
If you present that story, it's obvious that something's broken.
To a student in the dorms, Napster was all the music you could ever want, without having to venture out of your dorm room. You could get just one song off of an album, so you didn't need to buy the entire Destiny's Child CD just to hear the song "Survivor". And if you thought "Bombs Over Baghdad" was a great song, you didn't have to commit to buying an entire Outkast CD before determining whether or not you'd like the rest of their songs.
It's almost ten years later, and finally, it's possible to buy music using iTunes, or using the DRM-free Amazon MP3. It took longer than it should have because everyone was busy arguing the "correct" answer to the wrong question.