Comment by Diogenesian
11 hours ago
The article is mostly an interview with a journalist who wrote a book about Napster. The claim comes from his book. That's the source. I have not read the book. If you have concerns about the methodology you should read it yourself.
Since the explanation for the claim is essentially pay-walled behind the book, I will just choose to ignore it
"People got used to free shit and stopped paying as much."
"Your claim is poorly supported."
"Well it came from a book. Check it out if you're interested."
"What? It's not free? Hell no I won't pay!"
(anecdotally) proving their point that pay walling something doesn't mean people will pay for it. Buying the book would have been hypocritical.
2 replies →
> "Well it came from a book. Check it out if you're interested."
> "What? It's not free? Hell no I won't pay!"
I am also sceptical that my burning questions will be answered in the book, thus I choose to not buy it. Also, the Goodreads reviews don't look too good
It's unfathomably weird of you to frame an article as a source for your claim and then wait for someone to point out that the article does not support your claim before admitting that the source is actually a book that you haven't read.