Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmpz | Hacker News Reader

> To take an example of the permissionless culture, Napster really didn't hurt anyone, but did upset a lot of the entrenched asymmetric power structures in the music industry..

This is demonstrably false. Napster and it's ilk did hurt people. It did not focus it's upset only on the 'entrenched asymmetric power structures in the music industry,' it also affected small business and independent musicians, arguable more so, since they weren't as well funded to adapt to the disruption.

In terms of the 'crucial development leading to iTunes.. Spotify,' how have these not become the newly entrenched asymmetric power structures? Bandcamp is a notable exception, and I don't think Napster in anyway contributed to it's development, except for the fact that it might have been a way to distribute your own music. But that wasn't it's primary use.

View on HN

>Napster and it's ilk did hurt people.

How? When Napster showed up, I started BUYING MUSIC on CDs at a prodigious rate, because I was discovering all these new artists I would have never heard on the radio. The same was reflected across the industry. It was a boom time for the music industry, and lifted all boats.

It's the reaction to Napster that killed things, once they started suing customers, and equated us to thieves on the high seas, I haven't bought a CD since, neither have many others.

I'm a bit surprised you couldn't imagine how it didn't lift all boats. Not at all. Consider a band on an independent label, not a subsidiary of one of the majors. Maybe they're earlier in their career, and haven't yet broken through.

For most bands in these cases, their primary revenue came from record sales, touring at this level was very expensive, and was usually promotional rather than a revenue stream. They weren't renting big buses, they didn't have roadies. They're touring to promote their new record.

For these bands, this period was devastating. Before there was a Bandcamp, before streaming services. Yes, it could be seen like radio where some people used Napster as a way to preview artists.. but not everyone did.

Major labels were able to live through the transition, they're like venture capitalists, as long as they have enough huge and profitable artists, they can offset losses. But that's not true for anybody but them.

I saw it. I was working in the music industry from 1999 to 2010, as a musician, working with independent record labels, and in recording studios. It did not lift all boats, I promise you.

I remember reading things like this at the time that told me I wasn't alone.[1]

The music industry shot itself in the foot. I'm sorry you got caught in it.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/study-napster-boosts-cd-sales/

> it also affected small business and independent musicians, arguable more so, since they weren't as well funded to adapt to the disruption.

By "independent musicians" I assume you mean Lars Ulrich.

Nope. Lars Ulrich got a lot of hate for his stance against piracy, since Metallica were unlikely to suffer much from it. But, I think his perspective came from the time they spent as an independent band where they would not have survived without record sales.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com