There is a problem with this Lamp comparison. With a "lamp" or other
material good, there isn't already an existing network to obtain the product for free. For years people have been making
mix tapes, recording songs off of the
radio and borrowed Albums.
Also there is a measurable loss of
income with the question of a mismarked product, or incorrect change given. However in the years of 1999-2000 the
record industry saw a measurable growth in album sales. Wether the number would have been higher without napster (or possibly lower as some proponents of napster proclaim citing that napster introduces listeners to
music that they might not otherwise purchase) is an unknowable factor. The same uproar was made by the recording industry with the introduction of tape recorders that allowed people to tape songs off the radio and copy their albums onto the rapidly booming
cassette format.
I used napster briefly under "I wonder what the big deal is about" auspices. I found myself really only downloading either
a.) Songs that I already had on
CD/
Tape/
Vinyl
b.) Songs that I could not find anywhere else
In the case of a.) my use of napster fell entirely under
fair use. In the case of b.) some explanation is needed. I would look for songs By
band name and download what I could find that I did not have, the next time I went to a
record store I would oten look for albums containing the songs that I had just downloaded. If I had not found these songs on
Napster I would never have purchased tha albums (this explains my two
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes CDs. I am also looking for the
Reel Big Fish album where they do a cover of
Hungry like the Wolf).
The problems with napster lie in interpretations of
copyright law and issues about the control of distribution, not in any provable financial loss (at least that I've yet to see
evidence of).