Napster: End of the Record Biz?

[Anderton]

In case you're not aware, Napster is a program that makes finding free MP3 files easier than ever. People who use Napster can access each other's hard drives and pull off files, with of course no regard for copyright or any of those legal niceties. But this begs a larger question: is the music business as we know it doomed? How do YOU feel about getting music without paying for it? What about secure downloads? This echoes the "home taping is killing music" argument that was made with cassettes, shortly before the record industry had its most profitable years ever. What do YOU think?

[Anderton]

Something else to think about: With all the brouhaha over MP3 sites, I know of NO act that has been "broken" by sites like MP3.com. I think the Noise-to-Signal ratio of these sites is way too high -- too much stuff, and you have no idea whether the quality is any good. Are any of you making money by selling stuff online?

[Anderton]

Another consideration: most pro groups make the big bucks from touring, t-shirts, being covered by other musicians, and residuals -- not necessarily by selling a boatload of CDs. I'm sure the Stones made FAR more money from their last your than from Bridges to Babylon. So it's no wonder that big groups are more interested in embracing MP3; they don't make that much from the CDs anyway. But what about the little guys who only have music to sell? This "levelling of the playing field by MP3" is starting to sound like snake oil salesmen to me.

[Randy Peterson]

The idea of anyone being able to tap into my hard drive creeps me out. Man, what about viruses and all that? It seems like you'd have to be an idiot to let any more people have access to your computer than is absolutelt necessary. - RP

[Blair Godwin]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Another consideration: most pro groups make the big bucks from touring, t-shirts, being covered by other musicians, and residuals -- not necessarily by selling a boatload of CDs. I'm sure the Stones made FAR more money from their last your than from Bridges to Babylon. So it's no wonder that big groups are more interested in embracing MP3; they don't make that much from the CDs anyway. But what about the little guys who only have music to sell? This "levelling of the playing field by MP3" is starting to sound like snake oil salesmen to me.

 

We're not the Stones out here. We just want to get our music heard. I will probably never make a living from playing music, but at least with MP3 sites, I have a chance that people will hear what I've done. I don't think any of these sites are saying "we'll make you a star." Thye're saying "we'll put your music up here, good luck." It's not much, but it's better than nothing, which is the alternative. IF Napster allow more people to hear me, fine. I don't care if it prevents Abba or something from getting some back royalties.

[Anderton]

Napster is making CNN, Time magazine, causing notoriety on college campuses...and you guys don't care what's going on?!? Hey, what's up? Is it because you're not aware of Napster, don't care, or what? The future of the music biz is being carved out here, whether you like it or not, and this is pretty important stuff!!!

[Anderton]

BTW -- I was just talking to a friend in Germany who runs a record label. He says that it's estimated about 30% of all CDs are now pirated CDs. You can imagine how losing 1/3 of your sales affects record companies. I was wondering about the validity of that statistic until I went in to the Saturna electronics superstore (a German chain that's like Circuit City). You would not believe the piles and piles of CD-Rs and CD-RWs (as well as CD-R/RW drives) stacked up next to the cassettes and such. Either Germany is generating a ton of data and they're VERY conscientious about backup, or a ton of stuff is being pirated.

 

Interestingly, Alex Merck (a writer for mags in Europe as well as an independent label owner) thinks that much of the impetus for copy-protected audio downloads is with the idea of eventually eliminating the CD (!), as it's too easy to duplicate. It seems that "perfect sound forever" is coming back to haunt the record companies, as they see digital clone after digital clone hitting the streets.

[Vitamin B]

How much more does your player weigh with a full load of music? Can you touch the bits?

What is needed is a new paradigm. What are some new possibilities for collecting payment/pricing?

 

The format (MP3, .wav, RA, etc)? Whatever the customer's player supports, of course. The players, the formats will continue to get better and cheaper, it's a non-issue.

Encryption is not an option if anything over $1.00 is the asking price.

 

For the foreseeable future, some type of digital-only transaction will co-exist with retailers and other distribution channels.

 

Bruce

[alphajerk]

i really dont care about mp3's aside to put up songs for people to DL. maybe they will buy the CD. they will get ten times the information than mp3. but if they are happy with just an mp3, thats cool. i used to tape songs off the radio. what the difference?

 

i dont like metallica thinking they can sue napster, greedy. not make enough last year??? whiny rock stars.

 

bootlegging has been known to actually increase sales... go figure.

[Chip McDonald]

the effect of Napster won't show up for another... half year I would think.

 

I teach guitar for a living, and as of about 2-4 months ago I noticed people were starting to bring in CDR discs of songs they wanted to play.

 

As of about 3 weeks ago I have been told from students they're getting a lot of stuff using Napster.

 

 

Aspects of the dynamic as I see it are as follows:

 

CNN did more to boost Napster than anything. In the week following the CNN report I heard more references to Napster than anything else.

 

The Metallica suit has also massively pushed Napster over the top.

 

In the short haul, people will clamor to grab everything they can. Probably for about a year. This is going to have a big effect I think on sales.

 

Long term, it's going to have a weeding out effect. People who naturally gravitate to computers will continue to use it. Like the Internet, after the initial hype it will settle down and some people will not want to bother with it.

 

I predict music aimed at young girls will not be impacted much at all. Which means the industry might refocus on that aspect more than ever. Uhg.

 

Music aimed at college kids will suffer the most.

 

"Fringe" market stuff - jazz, fusion, world beat - will remain in the same quandry it is in now, since it's lack of mainstream visibility is reflected in availability with Napster.

 

The end result will mean reputation for live music will become more important to artists.

 

There's also the angle that just because a kid makes 10 cd's of music doesn't mean the industry just lost income on 10 cd's. It's still just bothersome enough for most people to make cd's that they're still going to take money they allocate for purchasing music to the record store.

 

The industry could learn a lot by noticing what is popular on Napster. Much more accurate than any other rating system....

 

 

A concerted effort to bring a cheap DVD-audio player phenomenon to the market would stem the tide dramatically. You would then reduce the situation to the old cassette tape vs. CD

argument. Although I admit that's not a perfectly linear analogy.

 

There is something to be said about the generic nature of music the industry has reduced artists to. I admit, I have used Napster - although I find Usenet easier (and more suitable for my tastes in music). I download obscure live bootlegs I'm not going to find anywhere else, not label releases. I don't download recordings of artists I respect - for instance, the new Allan Holdsworth - not just because I don't think MP3's sound as good, but because I know he needs and deserves the money. I don't think that's a freaky notion; I think this attitude will be something of what will come about over a period of time. Call it "Voluntary Socially Selective Communism". Likewise, this has A LOT to do with why people don't feel too guilty about stealing a recording of the latest Metallica.

 

Groups that profit from impulse buying will suffer the most, which could be a good thing from an industry marketing standpoint as far as de-emphasizing flash in the pan trendy music. People will think "I'll check that out on Napster because I know it will be there". As opposed to people who know what they like and wait for it to come out, if it's an artist that's not going to immediately show up on someone's hard drive *those* are the people who will still purchase cd's retail. Which again, can have a nice effect on the industry from an artistic standpoint: the notion that music created by a group that has *moderate to long term* staying power becomes more profitable than the latest copy cat trend product.

 

Just some thoughts....

[Anderton]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Just some thoughts....

 

 

I think you've really nailed the napster phenomenon. Very insightful, especially the part about who's going to get hurt most. And the idea of using Napster to get a more accurate indication of what really is popular is intriguing.

 

The question is, what IS the model for the industry going to be? This isn't just an online issue. When DJs play tracks, what is the artist who created the track getting? And when does it become the DJ's music and not the artist's?

 

One thing about the compensation issue is it seems to me right now that either you hit it big, or you end making nothing. Whatever the solution, it would be nice if it allowed a greater number of musicians to simply make a decent living.

[Chip McDonald]

>Anderton wrote:The question is, what IS the >model for the industry going to be? This

 

The Internet can't be forced. It will have to emerge as it evolves.

 

>When DJs play tracks, what is the artist who >created the track getting?

 

Free advertisement?

 

>And when does it become the DJ's music and >not the artist's?

 

When the original music is altered beyond immediate recognition. Otherwise it's something like a software EULA situation I think.

 

What people don't want to face is that music is now effectively as ubiquitous as "software". Perhaps the notion of music having to be sold at a retail outlet is now dated.

 

At this point, if it's an artist I'm truly interested in, I would prefer to go to their website and order a cd *directly* from them. For some artists this is probably more effective, I know that Allan Holdsworth has probably done well recently with direct ordering (albeit with the the added expense of a middle man label involved).

 

So perhaps eventually musicians will have to accept the notion of mega-distribution being a bit of a non-issue. Dedicated fans will want to purchase music the moment it comes out online; these same people, having recieved their music in such a way are less likely to then turn around and casually distribute it on the Net. In this situation, their are two groups: the dedicated fan and the obliquely interested person. The artist in question may be one of 20 the casual listener grabs off the Net; but it might pique his/her interest enough that they readily await the next *official* release online.

 

The only difference between Napster and the manner that radio functions in is that it offers immediate satisfaction of tastes. If there were radio stations that would play only music a person was interested in 24 hours a day, there would be a similar situation. Napster is like perfectly optimized radio in that respect. Looking at it that way, it functions as a medium of advertisement for a virtual musical "shareware" situation (using the honor system of course....).

 

Which is imperfect, but in the end maybe the reality. Maybe "they" should immediately start pushing an honor system mentality, ala shareware: try what you like, but if you *really* like it, buy it. *Respect the artist*.

 

There's going to be a loss in sales, regardless. The sporadic impulse buyer is perhaps going away, as is the person who buys music based on media pressure on their tastes. Let's get real; a lot of people rush out and buy the Latest Hyped Big Music Star's release, not thinking if they really like it or not, and listen to it once or twice and go back to what they *really* like. That's going away perhaps, and again that's maybe a good thing artistically. If labels want to keep trying to sell generic fluff for this situation that's fine, but I don't think it's a wise expenditure of advertising revenue.

 

The Future: similar to a mid-70's AOR mentallity. People like the artists they *really* like and buy their releases, but use this new-fangled hi-fi technology called "cassette tape" (Napster/MP3) to copy things they think are marginally interesting.

 

The industry is much worse off prepared for the MP3/Napster/Gnutella/ etc. phenomenon because of their own greed. If the industry had been built upon music as art instead of *product*, there would be more social moral pressure against it (as there were, if I vaguely recall from my childhood, relative to cassette taping in the mid 70's).

 

>seems to me right now that either you hit it >big, or you end making nothing. Whatever the >solution, it would be nice if it allowed a >greater number of musicians to simply make a >decent living.

 

I agree. It could possibly act as a culling phenomenon for marginally artistic chaff. Perhaps people will end up having a more idealistic attitude towards music in keeping it a personal thing instead of an aspect of pop culture. I don't think real artists have anything to fear, as far as being wiped out is concerned. They may eat more honest pie, but still be better off than most "normal" people. Likewise, people who would be under the radar otherwise (marginal independents) may have a chance to be rewarded for their work due to the nature of the medium.

[Anderton]

>Maybe "they" should immediately start pushing an honor system mentality, ala shareware: try what you like, but if you *really* like it, buy it. *Respect the artist*.<

 

I don't know how good the response is to shareware. The honor system is a nice concept, but the percentage of compliance is certainly nowhere near 100%. Software piracy also seems to be significant. So now the question is, how does one create a moral climate that encourages people to "Do the right thing?" And perhaps even more important, can that thinking survive in the music industry if society as a whole doesn't subscribe to it? So many concerns in the digital world...

[blackwon88]

I have mixed feelings about my copyrights being traded around but then I would love to have all these people trading my music around that means someone is listening and maybe someone would pay to come see me when i came to town. It's too early to tell about Napster

I didn't know anything about them until i read that Dr Dre (whos attorney Howard King is the same as Mettallica's)was suing them.

 

I consider MP3s to be a great promo tool I posted a song on Riffage last year and that led to getting an article in Keyboard Mag

in March (shameless plug) even while my album is still being recorded so to that respect you can't beat it as far as a promo tool and its cheaper than handing out a bunch of cassette & CD promos.

 

Personally I won't listen to an MP3 other than just hearing a song or two by an artist, if i like what i hear im going to buy the record because i want what the artist thought was his best representation of his or her music. All the records that i recorded on tape back in the day i bought them because i wanted it straight from the source and not some muddy FM or second generation copied bootleg thats just too disrespectful to a musician. (honor system yes).

 

(Now i will totally go against what i just said)

I go through great pains to record my music and i want people to hear what i had mastered not someone burning copies of an MP3

so that brings up something else SOUND QUALITY IT REALLY SUCKS NOW!!!!!

If the record industry was really as smart as they had money they would start cranking out DVDs and market them so everyone would have to hear music in surround just like they did with vinyl...

 

sorry i didn't anserw your ? Graig...

great topic though

[Chip McDonald]

>Anderton wrote:I don't know how good the >response is to shareware. The honor system >is a nice concept, but

 

Shareware has worked well for some people. Really well for people like Id software (Doom). If it's good, people will feel guilty about stealing it.

 

> the percentage of >compliance is certainly nowhere near 100%.

 

I agree. I'm not sponsoring that notion as a solution, but as a way of staving off the massive blood loss the industry is about to potentially face.

 

 

In fact... hmmm... I wouldn't be surprised if one of the publishing companies throws up an advert on MTV railing against Napster and MP3's in general eventually. Which could really, really backfire on them (ala anti-drug tv campaigns).

 

 

>Software piracy also seems to be

> significant. So now the

 

It's significant, but people also buy stuff that they've once stolen - provided they like it. I wish I hadn't said "Shareware" now, because it's probably not a good comparison (probably no better than the silly Standard Oil/Microsoft comparison...).

 

>question is, how does one create a moral >climate that encourages

>people to "Do the right thing?"

 

A number of high profile artists will have to speak up in a more down to earth fashion than Metallica's "Sue'em All" attitude.

 

Dave Matthews would be a good one. If he were to say something along the lines of "it's cool to trade live shows but at least buy the record" that would have a serious impact on the college situation.

 

When a big act whines about it with an authoritarian voice, it's very, very ineffectual. It rails against the precepts of rock and roll when an act decides to get high powered attorneys (not rock and roll) to try to stop people from preventing them from making them even more rich (again, not rock and roll). Makes them look less "Down with the people" and disarms other less aggressive positions against the problem.

 

>society as a whole doesn't subscribe to it?

 

Something modern life has placed upon people, particularly perhaps Americans, is the notion

that things have always been the way they are and won't change. The amount of time in the scheme of history in which musicians have been able to encapsulate their creativity and sell it has been very short. At one time a musician could hope to become part of travelling band of bohemians, playing for food. Or hopefully hired by the king or a local baron to compose a piece of music for some court affair; and hopefully not disappoint and have his head lopped off perhaps! That modern technology has changed the nature of how musicians can make their living doesn't mean there's neccessarily a way of making the change profit in the same fashion it did before.

 

 

The industry saved some money going to a smaller package. They further saved some money trivializing the artistic skill of the musician. Then they made it a moot point, unless some pretty person also coincidentally has true musical ability ( Sarah McLachlan? Sting?). In the 70's it was kind of taboo to ask to borrow a friend's record so you could make a cassette tape of it. That stigma is gone now, *because* of the things I cite above. Fix those things and they're back to the retail situation of the 70's (at least). And maybe we'll have more legitimate music in the process....

[Pro Jules]

After mastering pro tools I hope to bone up on E-commerce. I think we are all screwed, and need to take steps to preserve a livelyhood. All the established fat cats will be OK (yawn) and perhaps arent realistic role models anymore. How to become a fat cat is the trick for the rest of us. Sam Phillips of Sun Records, (inspirational article in home recording...) Now there is a role model for the internet age. found talent. recorded it, mastered it and released it!

Jules (meow!) Standen

[alphajerk]

i pay for the shareware i use. a lot of stuff has merely become freeware now.

 

i will send money to artists i enjoy to get the CD. and i second the motion to push higher res containers out like DVD. leave the mp3 to the internet. that is one thing i am getting tired of is the world revolving about the WWW. i still frequently go to live shows and support my local scene. thats where bands have ALWAYS made their money. CD sales have pretty much been the creme of the labels. but they in turn waste a LOT of money on bands who dont sell anything. so maybe it will cut out on some spending.

[boBGudgel]

I think the idea of the technology

to search for something in this manner is

pretty cool. I won't be sharing my drive

in the near future though. One good thing I

could see happening with this could be the distribution of demos. It would be

interesting to see statistics on CD sales,

and if they drop, can they tell if it was

because of .mp3 or CD bootlegging?

Are CD sales dropping? Maybe this will make the price of CDs go down some. Elvis Presley

CDs, (he can't spend the money), are mostly still full price last I looked. Who gets all this money anyhow?

Maybe there will be a generation of famous

but broke musicians.

 

boB

[JohnBartus]

Did anyone hear about the ruling against MP3.com? Unless appealed, the ruling will state that MP3 must, among other penalties, shut down their website.

 

As a musician and songwriter, I appreciate the ability to promote music with tools like MP3 and the Internet... but the audio quality and piracy issues are still there. Is it stealing when we're talking about Allan Holdsworth and not stealing when it comes to Metallica? Does the size of one's bank account determine whether it's morally OK to take without compensation one's intellectual property?

 

I am concerned about the people who think that stealing from Metallica is justified "just 'cause they're rich". Double standards have nothing to do with fairness and are no justification of the "Napsterizing" of anyone's music without the express permission of the copyright holder.

 

My $.02. Craig, nice to see you back.

 

------------------

John Bartus

Radio Active Productions

We Make Great Radio Happen - Guaranteed.

1-888-93-RADIO

www.radioactivedigital.com

[alphajerk]

mp3.com was asking for it though. whatever that beamit crap was all about is what got them in this mess. before that they were fine, except for losing 18.4mil last quater up from 1.6mil the quarter before. riaa is just putting some nails in early for that company. there are plenty of other mp3 sites for songwiters and bands.

 

i love napster, though i dont share my hard drive. i find some songs you just cant get on a cd release. so how is that hurting them? besides, cd sales have gone up. coincidence? i dont think so. they are probably making more money now because of it.

[Anderton]

Originally posted by JohnBartus:

Did anyone hear about the ruling against MP3.com? Unless appealed, the ruling will state that MP3 must, among other penalties, shut down their website.

 

As a musician and songwriter, I appreciate the ability to promote music with tools like MP3 and the Internet... but the audio quality and piracy issues are still there. Is it stealing when we're talking about Allan Holdsworth and not stealing when it comes to Metallica?

 

I don't know if the MP3 ruling will stand. I'm not totally clear on the legal realities, but as I understand it, you had access only to CDs that you actually own. I think it was established that you could make cassette copies of music you own to play in your car, it seems like this is the same issue. Perhaps the problem is that MP3 is serving as a "holding tank" for copyrighted material?

 

As to those who justify stealing from those who have the most bucks, of course it's wrong; stealing is stealing. I think these comments were more in the spirit of "If I download an Allan Holdsworth cut I like, I'll seek out the CD." I don't think that same person is necessarily going to download Metallica.

 

But there is one aspect of the record business that seems totally wrong to me. When the digital blank tape tax was passed (very quietly, I might add, in the waning days of the Bush administration), the money was to be distributed proportionally to those artists making the most money. However, if you're selling a zillion records, it seems hard to make the case you're being hurt by piracy. I would have greatly preferred to see the money distributed on some sort of inverted way, with smaller bands getting a larger share of the pie, to help in their development.

[Chip McDonald]

>Anderton wrote:

>Is it stealing when we're talking about >Allan Holdsworth and not

>stealing when it comes to Metallica?

 

 

That's a question of morallity which is a question of internal ethics - and can become a long and pedantically boring thread. So instead I'm going to recast it as "is there an effective difference between those two artists, relative to MP3?".

 

 

Assuming MP3's aren't going away (they're not), it's in Metallica's best interests to foister a system of social ethics around the issue instead of legal ones. What I mean by that is to espouse a way of thinking like I posted before, ala the '70's nature of cassette copying.

 

 

I see the ethics of it as follows:

 

"Is what I'm downloading something I would have bought if MP3 technology didn't exist?"

 

I've downloaded a ton of live performances. Stuff that was interesting in an oblique way that I've listened to maybe twice. NOT stuff I would have paid any money for. I downloaded some songs by an artist whose records I've already bought, out of convenience: something I wanted to hear again a little bit, but not so much I would ever entertain the thought of going out and re-buying the entire catalog on CD.

 

So in both cases, the artists lost no money. In both cases the artists gained a bit in the mental-space that they occupy in my mind, which should be taken as a plus.

 

In the case of Metallica - just because 16,000 people were downloading their new single (Metallica does singles now....?) does mean 16,000 people were going to buy it. On the other hand, maybe 5,000 decide they might want to buy their last CD after all because of it. Maybe 5,000 change their mind and don't. Regardless, the numbers can't be translated as a direct loss.

 

Holdsworth on the other hand, doesn't release singles (it *will* be the apocalypse if that happens... ). At the moment - I don't know if he realizes this - has NO DISTRIBUTION WHATSOEVER outside of his website. He stands to lose much more since that's his primary means of distribution; it's less likely someone is going to like something of his they've heard from Napster, and then go out and buy it because they *can't* go out and buy it. They have to do that online.

 

From that perspective I think allowing a Holdsworth MP3 to be illegally distributed is a greater evil than a Metallica MP3. The reason I point this out is beacuse while Metallica now has Gigantic Corporate Power Holdsworth doesn't; and if anything is done regarding this situation in some authoritairan manner, it's going to be to the benefit of Metallica - and the little guys like Holdsworth are going to be left in the lurch once again. No one is going to look out for the fringe, but the corporate.

 

 

So while I can say "it's morally wrong to distribute Metallica's music freely", the action of trying to stop it does not appeal to me because if the action *were* to be somehow effective, it will probably codify the difference in distribution issues between the mega-corporate labels and the smaller operation musicians.

 

>understand it, you had access only to CDs >that you actually own. I think it was

 

 

It ticks me off that MP3.com - which is a cool idea and site - decided to do something so questionably legal as that. If they go down it's their own fault, and it's to the detriment of having a large independent distribution source lose out.

 

>of "If I download an

>Allan Holdsworth cut I like, I'll seek out >the CD." I don't think that same person is

 

I'd like to qualify that I didn't advocate downloading anyone's commercial release....

 

>administration), the money was to be >distributed proportionally to those artists

 

That's sort of like inverse communism...

 

>you're being hurt by piracy. I would have >greatly preferred to see the money

 

I don't think it was a piracy issue with DAT anyhow. I think it was more of a control of the means of distribution, perhaps in order to keep what has happend now - the project studio boom - down. (insert Muad Dib statement here).

[Guest]

I've thought and thought about this issue, and literally have resolved nothing internally.

 

In the abstract (and being an open-source model believer, and a linux user) I am an absolutist when it comes to being able to access any information on the internet. Yet being an audio engineer and a producer means I should be vehemently opposed to the proliferation of MP3's (I certainly do hate their quality) since people would have me believe that they MP3's might be taking money out of my pocket.

 

The only thing I know for certain about this issue is that I don't use my home PC for music-listening. I use a STEREO for that. I use my home PC for surfing and other silly distractions.

 

(This literally just popped into my head)

 

Perhaps the answer is to come out with a format that is WORSE than MP3 quality, but yet good enough for previewing music. Sure, you'll get a great idea of how something sounds, and yet you wouldn't want to listen to something in that format all of the time.

 

Of course that doesn't make MP3's go away or solve that "problem" (and I have yet to decide if it is indeed a problem). But I suspect the cat is out of the bag on this one, and NOTHING anyone does at this point is going to make MP3's, or the people who like them, go away.

 

Rich...

[alphajerk]

but thats the thing, mp3's are already lower quality. the better move would be to come out with stuff of better than cd.... DVD, ive heard of it. push it on through. the bands could even include videos on it to make it more worth the money since they spend money on it anyways and MTV doesnt play videos anymore.

 

so what if 5k are DLing metallicas single, the radio, which is free, plays that same song 10 times a day. some markets have more than two stations playing it.

 

and one day, mp3's will go away. its just small enough for the internet pipeline right now.

[Anderton]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

[b>administration), the money was to be >distributed proportionally to those artists

 

That's sort of like inverse communism...[/b]

 

I prefer to think of it as investing in the future. Record companies frequently complain that the top 10% of the artists support the other 90%, so why take the proceeds from a blank tape tax and use it to reinforce that situation where the rich get richer? Certainly, no one can prove where that money would have gone. No one knows what CDs weren't bought because of copying. Why not do something with it that benefits the entire industry? In fact, why not redress some past wrongs, like getting royalties to musicians from the 50s and 60s who were systematically ripped off? All I'm saying is that if you're going to collect some nebulous tax for nebulous reasons, I could certainly build a case that smaller acts are hurt more by copying that megastars.

[songseeds]

Well, the end may be near for Napster.

 

I just received this via email:

 

============================================

COURTESY: MI2N News Network - http://www.mi2n.com

 

Napster Loses First Round in Court

 

WASHINGTON, DC, May 8, 2000 Napster, the company

that provides users with a hub of central computer

servers to which they connect and share millions of

pirated sound recordings, lost its first attempt to

evade liability for copyright infringement today.

 

Chief Judge Marilyn Hall Patel rejected Napster's

claim that it is a "mere conduit. "The decision

announced late Friday, followed a March 27 hearing in

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

California.

 

"This hearing was Napster's attempt to escape

responsibility for aiding and abetting wide scale

piracy and -- not surprisingly -- they lost," said

Hilary Rosen, President and CEO of the Recording

Industry Association of America (RIAA). "Clearly the

case will now move forward. Napster just lost its

last delaying tactic," Rosen declared.

 

Many artists and their managers are speaking out

against Napster for stealing their creative works.

 

"The court's decision today is the first step in

responding to those artists," added Rosen.

 

To review a complete list of artists quotes visit http://www.riaa.com.

 

The lawsuit, which was filed on

December 7, 1999 by the RIAA on behalf of its member

companies, charges Napster with contributory and

vicarious copyright infringement.

 

The RIAA is a trade association whose members create,

manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90 percent

of all legitimate sound recordings producedand sold in

the United States.

 

- 30 -

 

COURTESY: MI2N News Network - http://www.mi2n.com

 

=============================================

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by songseeds (edited 05-09-2000).]

[songseeds]

A few thoughts from this thread related to the topic of music consumer awareness:

 

Because I have musical "genes" (3rd generation), I have always been tempted to try and make "a living" in music. I actually did up until I was 24 yrs old (I'm 51 now), when I became convinced that it was too big a gamble and struck out to try something else. I had met older guys who'd been scraping by all their lives in the music biz and were bitter and poor.

 

The times HAVE changed, but are those seeking success in music today any better off?

 

It seems that there are a LOT more artists today, most likely because of the project studio explosion. Now anyone can have a literal music production FACTORY in their basement (I know, I have one!). The volume of musical material is enormous (most of it by unknown artists!).

 

It has occurred to me that musical artists are among the most exploited workers in our society. They work under conditions that most others would not tolerate. Look around and you will see most musicians will play for free, or play even though their expenses exceed their income, or give their recorded music away BECAUSE (here's my theory) they've been so conditioned to think that what they do has such little or no value, that they begin to believe it themselves.

 

Music consumers pick up on this (it's a self-fulfilling prophecy) and happily complete the feedback loop. They don't realize that when they go somewhere that charges NO COVER (considered by them to be a GOOD thing!), receive entertainment from an artist and then walk out the door, that the musician has not been dealt a fair deal in the transaction. I'm convinced that they just don't think about it!

 

Or, they download mp3 files and enjoy the music, not realizing that the PERSON(s) on the giving end may not be able to afford to buy groceries!!! Again, I don't think they think about that.

 

I wish there were PSAs (Public Service Announcements) in broadcast mass media (magazines, TV and Radio - and now, websites) that drive the point home to music consumers that FREE only seems like a good price! There are social costs that are not very pleasant.

 

Taking without giving in return is irresponsible!

 

When I see the obscene ticket prices that big, successful musicians are getting for playing and then hear someone complain that it's five bucks cover to get into a small venue, it makes me angry and sorta sad...

 

Arguably, my $0.02

 

 

------------------

richard

songseeds.com

[Anderton]

As to musicians getting a raw deal, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that we're described as "playing" music? That sets up a particular psychology in the way people look at us...we don't work, we play. Why should get paid to play?

 

I thank my lucky stars every day that even though I'm not a full-time gigging musician, my work keeps me connected with music at all times, and increasingly, allows me to make more and more music. But it's not in the traditional way -- it's a bunch of projects. A guest shot at a concert, a movie score, some mastering, the occasional solo gig, etc. I think more and more, the recipe for survival as a musician will be diversification. If you can provide the music for your local car dealership's video that shows on late night TV, more power to you!

 

To tie this back to Napster, it really only affects one part of the music-making world -- people who release CDs and such. There are many other music-making opportunities out there if you look -- not as glamorous, to be sure, but who needs glamor if you get to do what you love?

[alphajerk]

this whole lawsuit is the same as charging the gun manufacturers everytime somebody is killed with one.

 

i use napster to give out mp3's of my bands, and do a lot more DL's than mp3.com ever did for me.

 

i dont think we need labels anymore other than for sheer marketing. from recording to distribution, its all able to be accomplished in your basement. i would rather spend big bucks buying equipment than renting studio time anyday. at least youll have more than just a cd to show for your money spent.

 

the problem is while the internet made the physical world a LOT smaller, it made our functioning world as large as the universe itself.

 

i think the ruling was right on the mp3.com case because it was the actual corporation who wanted to stream released cd's but with napster it is the end user who is actually doing the pirating. although i really dont see how it differs from audio tape. i have some "illegal" mp3's on my machine that i got off using napster but in my defense, they are tracks that arent even AVAILABLE in stores. napster isnt causing the fail of the sale, the record industry is. otherwise i would gladly pay for it and hear ALL the information instead of a tenth of it.

[Chip McDonald]

>Anderton wrote: I prefer to think of it as >investing in the future.

 

Uhg, what kind of future, like the one we have today? I'm against taxes.

 

>Record companies frequently complain that

> the top 10% of the artists support the >other 90%,

 

I've never seen that. The labels act as a talent farm. They sign everyone in sight for questionable deals - the bands end up being responsible for most costs. 10% might get lucky, accidentally be on the edge of a new trend. That doesn't mean the label is supporting the other 90%.

 

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

>so why take the proceeds from a blank

>tape tax and use it to reinforce that >situation where the rich get richer?

 

... uhmm.. I'm not sure what side you're on now...

 

>not do something with it that benefits the >entire industry? In fact,

 

Are you kdding???? The industry has done NOTHING for me except decide my choice of music (fusion)is not worth promoting. Likewise making my work harder. Why should I contribute to the whole situation by giving them my money when I buy cd's to press my own music??? I owe them NOTHING. That's absurd - GIVE THE RECORD INDUSTRY MONEY FOR DOING A GOOD JOB???? So they can bring us more drivel and pidgeon hole music even more? I'm not for stealing music, but geez - they DO NOT deserve tax money from me.

 

>why not redress some past wrongs, like >getting royalties to musicians from the 50s >and 60s

 

That's BS. I have not wronged them. THE RECORD LABELS WRONGED THEM!!! *THEY* owe money to those musicians! *They* are the ones who signed them into a bad deal, and then used their power to further STEAL money from those artists! That's ultimate hypocrisy: the labels made an unreal money off of bad deals during the Motown era, and during other periods; and you want me to give them money that the label owes?

 

Thinking of the industry in that light - Napster might be over due justice!

 

>nebulous tax for nebulous reasons, I could

 

Where did this tax notion come from? If, by some insane cosmic twist of events the industry manages to pull off a tax on *my* recording media (CD's) I'll feel free to tax them as I see fit in the form of taking whatever music I like - and never my a commercial release again.

 

>certainly build a case that smaller acts are >hurt more by copying that megastars.

 

They (the smaller acts) are getting hurt more,they won't get any help from a tax! It is also communism. If you're going to put a tax on recording media, then I demand to take a tax credit in April for being a musician. Forget the record label middle man! Let the government dole it out; who trusts the labels? The wolves are going to fairly pass out the dividends from this tax???? Have you been breathing lysergic core solder???

 

 

You *are* joking, aren't you?