Author Topic: Free, Legal and Ignored  (Read 1086 times)

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Free, Legal and Ignored
« on: July 06, 2006, 05:38:00 pm »
I too, have given up any subscription based lease-model service, as soon as I was given an iPod.  But I can afford to.  I'm a bit surprised that college students have done the same.  The only true test of this model would be if Apple offered something similar that played on the iPod, but that makes too much sense for Apple to do.
 
 
 Free, Legal and Ignored
 
 Colleges Offer Music Downloads,
 But Their Students Just Say No;
 Too Many Strings Attached

 By NICK TIMIRAOS
 July 6, 2006; Page B1
 
 As a student at Cornell University, Angelo Petrigh had access to free online music via a legal music-downloading service his school provided. Yet the 21-year-old still turned to illegal file-sharing programs.
 
 The reason: While Cornell's online music program, through Napster, gave him and other students free, legal downloads, the email introducing the service explained that students could keep their songs only until they graduated. "After I read that, I decided I didn't want to even try it," says Mr. Petrigh, who will be a senior in the fall at the Ithaca, N.Y., school.
 
 College students don't turn down much that's free. But when it comes to online music, even free hasn't been enough to persuade many students to use such digital download services as Napster, Rhapsody, Ruckus and Cdigix. As a result, some schools have dropped their services, and others are considering doing so or have switched to other providers.
 
 To stop students from pirating music, more than 120 colleges and universities have tried providing free or subsidized access to the legal subscription services over campus networks in the past few years. About 7% of all four-year schools and 31% of private research universities provided one of the legal downloading services, according to a 2005 survey of 500 schools by the Campus Computing Project, a nonprofit that studies how colleges use information technology. Universities typically pay for the services, some with private grants and others through student fees. While a typical monthly subscription to Napster is $9.95, the schools have been able to cut special deals, funded in part by record companies.
 
 Purdue University officials say that lower-than-expected demand among its students stems in part from all the frustrating restrictions that accompany legal downloading. Students at the West Lafayette, Ind., school can play songs free on their laptops but have to pay to burn songs onto CDs or load them onto a digital music device.
 
 There's also the problem of compatibility: The services won't run on Apple Computer Inc. computers, which are owned by 19% of college students, according to a 2006 survey of 1,200 students by the research group Student Monitor. In addition, the files won't play on Apple iPods, which are owned by 42% of college students, according to the survey.
 
 "People still want to have a music collection. Music listeners like owning their music, not renting," says Bill Goodwin, 21, who graduated in May from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. USC decided last year that it was finished with Napster after fewer than 500 students signed up, and it moved to Ruckus, hoping students would find that service more appealing.
 
 Meanwhile, both Cornell and Purdue will no longer offer their students free music next year. An anonymous donor had paid for Cornell to offer Napster for two years, but the student government passed on a chance to keep the service by charging students a fee. "There hasn't been an overwhelming response to keep it," says Kwame Thomison, Cornell's student assembly president. "Students that enjoyed the service enough can pay for it themselves."
 
 The number of students using Napster at George Washington University dropped by more than half between the first and second year, from one-third to one-seventh of eligible users. Alexa Kim, who oversees the Washington school's program, attributes the higher use at the start to the service's novelty and to press attention during the inaugural year. She adds that the university hasn't decided if it will renew its contract.
 
 Colleges started offering the services in part because they were concerned that the recording industry might try to hold them liable for their students' copyright violations. So far no schools have been sued by the recording industry.
 
 Universities also have another reason for reducing illegal downloading: The large amount of bandwidth used by movie and music downloads chokes universities' computer networks. The subscription services complement university filtering programs that can identify users who are misusing school networks. "The bandwidth that I recovered saved us $75,000 a year in network costs," says Matthew Jett Hall, assistant vice chancellor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. The university's Napster program requires users to pay $2 a month for unlimited downloads.
 
 The Recording Industry Association of America says it has been happy with the progress the program has made so far. "Universities tend to move not all that quick to do things like this, so it's really quite an achievement," says RIAA President Cary Sherman.
 
 Some schools that don't offer free downloads dismiss the subscription services as too costly for the results they achieve, especially because so many students now buy music from Apple's iTunes Music Store. "We were not in a position to offer an alternative to iTunes," says Lev Gonick, the chief information officer at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "The alternatives looked like they had more sizzle than steak."
 
 There is also little consensus among administrators about how successful the services have been in eliminating piracy. Although some say complaints from the recording industry have dropped sharply, no one can tell if that's because fewer students are engaging in illegal file-sharing or if the industry simply doesn't want to go after schools that are spending money to combat the problem. "The RIAA's push to buy into these services strikes me as protection money. Buy in and we'll protect you from our lawsuits," says Kenneth C. Green, the Campus Computing Project's director.
 
 The RIAA denies the charge. "We do sue students and send takedown notices to universities that have legal services all the time," says Mr. Sherman. Universities have a particular responsibility to teach students the value of intellectual property, he adds, because they are "probably the No. 1 creator of intellectual property." And he disputes the idea that the subscription services have fallen out of favor. The number of campuses that subscribe will increase "pretty significantly" in the fall, he says.
 
 Even at schools where more than half of the students use the services, few choose to buy songs. Only 2% of students at the University of Rochester in New York reported buying a song that they had downloaded from Napster in a fall 2005 survey of about 700 students. In the same survey, 10% said they downloaded songs from other services -- not necessarily legally -- after finding one they liked on Napster.
 
 "There isn't that much we can do," acknowledges Aileen Atkins, Napster's senior vice president for business affairs and general counsel. "If they have an iPod, they're going to buy it on iTunes. It's a fact of life."
 
 Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com
27>34

HoyaSaxa03

  • Member
  • Posts: 7053
Re: Free, Legal and Ignored
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2006, 06:03:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
 "People still want to have a music collection. Music listeners like owning their music, not renting," says Bill Goodwin, 21, who graduated in May from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
that's the bottom line for me, i need to know i own my collection, not that i'm renting it from napster ... if i ever decided to quit the service i would lose all the work i had put into my collection for however long i had napster ... i could see how this would make total sense for a casual music listener, but i don't understand why anyone who really collects music would want to use this (i'd be interested to hear the case for it)
(o|o)

HoyaSaxa03

  • Member
  • Posts: 7053
Re: Free, Legal and Ignored
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2006, 06:06:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
 "There isn't that much we can do," acknowledges Aileen Atkins, Napster's senior vice president for business affairs and general counsel. "If they have an iPod, they're going to buy it on iTunes. It's a fact of life."
i've had an iPod for years, and i've never bought anything from iTunes ... and i know plenty of other people who are in the same boat
(o|o)

Tom Servo

  • Member
  • Posts: 345
Re: Free, Legal and Ignored
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2006, 06:33:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:
   
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
 "People still want to have a music collection. Music listeners like owning their music, not renting," says Bill Goodwin, 21, who graduated in May from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
that's the bottom line for me, i need to know i own my collection, not that i'm renting it from napster ... if i ever decided to quit the service i would lose all the work i had put into my collection for however long i had napster ... i could see how this would make total sense for a casual music listener, but i don't understand why anyone who really collects music would want to use this (i'd be interested to hear the case for it) [/b]
I think the best argument for "rented" music is that you're buying a listening service, not a collection of goods.  You get to try out new music for as long as you want before buying.  The upside is being able to listen to more than you could afford to buy and never buying an album you don't like.  Downside is the extra cost and, for me at least, the hassle of updating licenses and dealing with both protected and unprotected music on the same computer.