Leslie Means. Nicolae Sfetcu. Quickbooks Online for Beginners. Scott Casterson. Michael Pease. Evan Jones. Catherine Kolecki. Quick Review on Online Invoicing. Hosea Lim. Public Domain: Turning Ideas to Dollars. Thrivelearning Institute Library. Nigel King. John Beidle.
A New Frontier: Book Publishing as a Commons
Optimize Your Resume. Mike Piehl. Technical Writing for Software User Documentation. Alan Andrew. Gerard Blokdijk. Kathy King.
Jan Hyatt. Adam Mathews. Personalized Digital Advertising. Diaz Nesamoney. Intelligent Content: A Primer.
Ann Rockley. David Jones. Bob Frazier. Su TP. Web 2.
Jacqueline Kim. Napster's brand and logos were acquired at bankruptcy auction by Roxio which used them to re-brand the Pressplay music service as Napster 2. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the defunct peer-to-peer service. For the later service that operated as Napster, see Napster pay service. For the current service operated as Napster, see Napster streaming music service. Main article: Napster streaming music service.
- Dont Want To Miss A Thing.
- In Rebellion (Archangel Jarahmael and the War to Conquer Heaven, Book II).
- Navigation menu.
- VOUS ÊTES VRAIMENT UN ENFANT DE DIEU ? (French Edition)?
- Books & Videos!
- The impact of p2p file distribution on paid content sales presentation.
- Chapter Five: Piracy;
United States: Mediadecoder. Retrieved December 27, Simon, Dan. September 27, Menn, Joseph Crown Business. Schonfeld, Erick. October 6, Rosen, Ellen. The New York Times. May 26, Bradshaw, Tim. Spotify-MOG battle heats up. Financial Times. February 28, Emerson, Ramona. Sean Parker At Web 2. The Huffington Post. October 18, Kirkpatrick, David October Vanity Fair. Retrieved July 1, Journal of Consumer Research.
San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 18, Archived from the original on BBC News. Archived from the original on November 12, Retrieved April 26, CNET News. Archived from the original on June 28, MP3 Newswire. The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July , Napster amassed over 10 million users within nine months.
After eighteen months, there were close to 80 million registered users of the system. Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p service. It boasts over million members. According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have tasted file-sharing technology. Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement, calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one might think.
File sharers share different kinds of content.
Impact of P2P and Free Distribution on Book Sales
We can divide these different kinds into four types. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network.
She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away. From the perspective of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society since more exposure to music is good and harmless to the artist since the work is not otherwise available.
Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is. While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. The history of cassette recording is a good example. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record turnaround. But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong today. The question is also how harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the other types of sharing are. We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.
Ideas - O'Reilly Media
If the record companies sold more records through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have little static reason to resist them. Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file sharing?
Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest it might be close. The RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since That no doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales.
Rising prices could account for at least some of the loss. Thus, although 2. Every taking is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording industry.
What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that are no longer commercially available. There are thousands of used book and used record stores in America today. Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record stores. That difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were selling the record in competition to my sharing.
The Internet is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with the market. It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the copyright owner got something from this trade. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as well? This sharing clearly benefits authors and society.
Science fiction author Cory Doctorow, for example, released his first novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom , both free on-line and in bookstores on the same day. People would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then both he and society are better off.
Actually, much better off: It is a great book! Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something important in order to protect type A content. What are the efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be unavailable?