Napster: End of the Record Biz?

[alphajerk]

amen.

 

the tax on cd's that SONY (right?) gets for every cd sold!!! thats BS. its whats keeping dvd audio from happening right now isnt it?

 

thats the beauty of the internet, it takes away true ownership. i got some "illegal" songs off the net but i dont consider that i really own the song. it could quite easily be deleted one day when i need more space on my HD. isnt like having a full on CD, hell i dont even like the bootleg CD's much either unless its a live show thing.

 

oh while we are at it, why dont they give graceland back too, great white hype.

 

the industry is the bigggest bunch of crybabies ive ever seen. nothing is EVER their fault.

 

this whole protecting the artist crap is going to make me puke.

[Anderton]

Originally posted by 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.

 

For the record -- I've opposed any type of tax on recording media from the day this first reared its ugly head. But since it's in place, my argument is let's at least not use it to make the rich richer. This isn't just a philosophical concept; I think logically, it's hard to prove that someone selling millions of CDs, and making millions of dollars, is being victimized all that much by home taping/copying.

 

>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%.

 

No, it's not the label that supports the other 90%. It's the top 10% who provide enough income for the label to stay afloat, hence it allows the label to serve as the "talent farm" you describe.

 

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.

 

From what I understand, the blank CDs you buy for duplicating probably aren't being taxed. The "Audio only" CDs for the stand-alone recorders are being taxed, which is why they cost more. Again, let me emphasize I am not in favor of ANY tax on blank media. But if I'm going to be taxed, then I want some say as to how that money's going to be spent, and I'd rather see it spent on people who need it than on people who don't. Communistic? I don't know...I think it's just being pragmatic.

 

I demand to take a tax credit in April for being a musician.

 

Actually, you can potentially save a lot of money on taxes if you're a self-employed musician. Check out the tax adviser articles on this very site.

 

Have you been breathing lysergic core solder???

 

Not since Radio Shack ran out a few years back.

[Anderton]

the tax on cd's that SONY (right?) gets for every cd sold!!! thats BS. its whats keeping dvd audio from happening right now isnt it?

 

You're partially right. Sony and Phillips have the patent on the CD, which gives them a royalty (not a tax) on every CD sold. Obviously, this means Big Bux. DVD-Audio is a different medium, which would cut off the royalty stream. The enhanced CD format that Sony is pushing would still be a CD, so royalties would continue to flow. That's why they're pushing it.

 

However, that is only one factor why DVD-audio hasn't taken off. The other has been wrangling over copy protection, and perhaps most telling of all, disinterest on the part of consumers and the record industry. DVD movies have been a massive success because people could see an obvious improvment of digital optical media over VHS tape. Apparently, people are quite happy with CDs, and don't see a great need for DVD-Audio. Frankly, neither do I, except that boxed sets could be packaged as a single CD. 24/96 isn't all the crucial in all but the finest listening enviroments, and I listen to most CDs in my car.

 

the industry is the bigggest bunch of crybabies ive ever seen. nothing is EVER their fault.

 

Amen.

[alphajerk]

yea, but cd's only hold audio. the dvd audio can still hold video. to my include the videos that mtv doesnt play anymore on them. more for the consumer. they would change their desires with the right motivation.

 

hell, consumers seem to be happy with mp3's so what do i know. aside from a quick DL with decent sound, i want my DVD! 24/48!

 

all these kids who will be making big bucks will eventually realize mp3 sucks and want some good audio flowing through their nice systems. lets face it, there are more millionare twentysomethings than ever.

[Chip McDonald]

>Anderton wrote:But since it's in place, my

 

What tax is on the $1 cd blanks I buy? I wasn't aware of this...

 

>No, it's not the label that supports the >other 90%. It's the top 10% who provide

 

My point is that in the end, that 90% isn't getting supported: they're going to have to pay it back. The labels make a profit off of the top 10%, but there is nothing in their contracts that provides for supporting the other 90%.

 

>income for the label to stay afloat, hence

 

The labels get plenty to stay afloat, and in comparison to what the artists get it's quite the greedy arrangment in general.

 

>it allows the label to serve as the "talent >farm" you describe.

 

Right, the majors are now so profitable that they *can* afford to buy every little marginally successful independent label, "just in case". This smells much of an analagous situation with Microsoft buying up smaller competitors...

 

>From what I understand, the blank CDs you >buy for duplicating probably aren't being >taxed.

 

That's what I assumed, which is why I'm confused by your originating post speculating about the use of a tax seemingly to offset current losses due to Napster.

 

> The "Audio only" CDs for >the stand-alone recorders are being taxed,

 

Interesting, I didn't know this.

 

> see it spent on people >who need it than on people who don't.

 

It should not be left in the hands of the labels. Let the tax go to the government (as it should be anyhow!??!).

 

>Actually, you can potentially save a lot of >money on taxes if you're a self-employed

>musician. Check out the tax adviser articles >on this very site.

 

Uhg, it's a bit late (couple thousand dollars late) for that, but I'm off to look now...

[Blair Godwin]

I just hope that none of these napster fans decides on a career in music, endures low pay, bad food, the breakup of a couple relationships, stolen gear, laughter of banks when you apply for a loan or mortage, then finally break through and have all their tunes ripped off by a bunch of spoiled college kids who think the world owes them everything.

 

And those who defend Napster, so if one of those kids comes and steals your car you worked for, are you going to think it's OK just because car companies make a lot of profit? Napster = hypocrisy.

[alphajerk]

if they didnt you wouldnt have shit to write about.

[Anderton]

Here's a very thought-provoking piece from John Perry Barlow that was sent via email. Barlow is a lyricist for the Grateful Dead, as well as a major figure regarding preservation of freedoms and the net.

 

NAPSTER.COM AND THE DEATH OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY

 

by John Perry Barlow

 

I expect most of you are aware that the Recording Industry

Association of America has been fighting a desperate struggle against

technologies that would end its century-long enslavement and

exploitation of musicians. One of these developments is something

called Napster.com, a system that indexes and makes available digital

music files that are stored on the private hard disks of its

subscribers.

 

About a month ago, the New York Times asked me to write an editorial

about Napster and the general state of copyright in the world of

music. I jumped at the chance and only after nine drafts and a lot of

nocturnal hair-tearing did I realize how impossible it would be to

both describe the situation in sufficient detail and comment on it in

no more than 700 words. I eventually gave up, but I did write

something that I would like to pass on to you, in the interest of

stimulating your thoughts on the subject. (If it resonates, feel free

to pass it further on.)

 

Of course, things have been moving very rapidly. In the time since I

wrote this piece, something called Gnutella has emerged. Gnutella is

a distributed indexing system for any kind of on-line content. The

fact that it has no central server nor identifiable individual in

charge means that it can't be shut down or sued.

 

Furthermore, I heard today of another development called Freenet.

Freenet, the work of a 23 year old Irish copyright anarchist named

Ian Clarke, is a system that makes it possible to exchange any

copyrighted material anonymously. Freenet would also make the storage

location(s) of the material impossible to locate, thus frustrating

such efforts as Metallica's current crack-down on Napster subscribers

who have stored their songs.

 

(You gotta love Metallica. There were a pain in the ass to their

parents. Now they're going to be a pain in the ass to their kids.)

 

There's plenty of action in this zone, and since one of my current

missions in life is to kill the music business and midwife the birth

of the musician business and audience business, I'm keeping plenty

busy.

 

In any event, here's what I had to say about it a month ago:

 

NAPSTER'S ENORMOUS MUSIC ROOM

 

An Op-Ed Piece for the New York Times

 

By John Perry Barlow

 

Last fall, an obscure 19 year old student named Shawn Fanning quietly

inflicted the wound that I believe will eventually kill the music

business as we know it. He set up a Web site called Napster.com.

 

Of course, the recording industry, like other traditional publication

media, was already suffering a likely terminal illness. Because of

the Internet, almost any informational product can be infinitely

reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet

without cost. This obsoletes the material containers previously

necessary for information transport as well as most of the industries

that manufactured them. The biggest remaining obstacle to this free

flow of digital liquid is legal, not practical.

 

But so far this impediment - copyright law - has been sufficient to

make most of the 20th Century's best musical creations and

performances very hard to find online. Nearly all of this material

has been commercially released and is therefore in the white-knuckled

grip of the companies that recorded it. Commercial MP3 sites are too

visible to risk legal assault by copyright patrols from the RIAA (or

Recording Industry Association of America.), so they traffic mostly

in recent or insignificant works.

 

But Fanning realized there is a lot more digitized music in

Cyberspace than one might think. This is because millions of ordinary

listeners have converted portions of their purchased music

collections into the MP3 format and copied them onto their hard

drives. He further realized that many of these personal hard disks

are continuously connected to the Internet, generally because their

owners, mostly students, hold accounts on academic networks.

 

Fanning also knew that people have an old and deep impulse to share

music with one another, so, in essence, he designed an immense and

growing virtual space, Napster.com, where they could do so. Napster

creates a vast community of folks who can play music directly from

one another's PC's, rather as they might play one of their roommate's

CD's on the stereo in their dorm room.

 

But of course, in this environment, what can be played can also be

copied. When I reach through Napster to the hard disk of some kid in

Ohio and grab his copy of, say, Cassidy by the Grateful Dead, I can

also place it on my hard disk as I listen to it.

 

It is this characteristic of Napster that so haunts the RIAA . They

believe that making this copy is as clear a case of theft as if I'd

shop-lifted a CD from Walmart..

 

But what is being "stolen?" And from whom? Speaking as the fellow who

co-wrote Cassidy, I don't believe that the kid in Ohio is injuring my

economic interests by sharing it with others. Deadheads have been

sharing our songs with each other for decades and it's done nothing

but increase the demand for our work.

 

Of course, the RIAA takes a very different view and has lately been

laboring by means, both legal and technical, to eliminate fair use,

requiring payment to be made every time someone hears the music they

claim to own. They regard Napster to be a global thief's bazaar.

 

But what can they do about it? Nothing, I'd say. Napster is legally

safe from them because no copyrighted material is actually stored

there. Nor is there any practical way to prosecute the burgeoning

multitudes who have already made over 380, 000 musical pieces

available there.

 

Appeals based on moral principles will avail them little. Cyberspace

is and always has been a "gift economy" where sharing is considered a

virtue, not a crime. The music industry is generally despised by both

music-lovers and musicians, to whom they've been returning about five

percent of the retail value of their works.

 

Further, most musicians agree with Public Enemy rapster Chuck D, who

recently said that the recording industry's legal assertion that they

own the music they distribute is as senseless as would be a claim by

Federal Express that they should own the contents of the packages

they ship.

 

Also, from an economic standpoint, many musicians have discovered, as

the Grateful Dead did, that the best way to make money from music is

to give it away. While scarcity may increase the value of physical

goods, such as CD's, the opposite applies to information. In a

dematerialized information economy, there is an equally strong

relationship between familiarity and value. If your work is good,

allowing what you've done to self-replicate freely increases demand

for what you haven't done yet, whether by live performances or by

charging online for the download of new work.

 

For these, and far more reasons than I can state here, I'm convinced

that the traditional music business is finished. Napster and other

environments like it will polish off the likes of BMG and Tower

Records within five years.

 

Personally, I can't say I'll miss it. For over a century, it has

exploited both musicians and audiences. By its proprietary practices

and crass insistence on mass appeal, it has desertified the ecology

of auditory epiphany, impoverished genius, fattened lawyers, turned

plastic into gold, and offered gilded plastic in return.

 

Music expresses the soul of a society. It is perhaps the most

singularly human activity of our peculiar species, since, unlike the

rest of our major endeavors, it doesn't support our physical

survival. But the 20th Century music business has transformed the

deepest currents of our culture into mere currency.

 

To be fair, I will confess that it had its purposes and time. Without

the record industry, I would never have heard The Rolling Stones,

Stockhausen, Handel, Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Robert Johnson, Ravi

Shankar, or Balinese Monkey Chants. Nor, more importantly, would they

have been able to hear - and thus build upon - each other.

 

I also recognize that some percentage of those who work in it appear

to be human beings. As a former cattle rancher, I feel a pang of

compassion at their economic demise. But history is littered with

such casualties. The people who worked in them found other jobs.

 

The graceful industries go down gently when they've outlived their

utility, but doesn't appear that this one is going to. They appear

prepared to bury with themselves an entire epoch of music under a

thick crust of copyright law, leaving a century-sized hole in the

history of music.

 

We can't allow this to happen. If it does, it will cause the

still-birth of what is presently gestating on Napster.com: the

musician business. (And even, with luck, something one might call the

audience business.)

 

In Napster's enormous room, music will arise in spontaneous and

global abundance in the space between creators and listeners so

interactively that it will be hard to tell which is which. No longer

will we mistake music for a noun, as its containers have tempted us

to do for a century. We will realize once more that music is a verb,

a relationship, a constantly evolving life form.

 

But you can't own verbs, nor relationships, nor divine gifts.

Whatever the current legalities, I personally find defining "my"

songs to be a form of property to be as philosophically audacious and

as impractical as would be a claim that I own "my" daughters, another

blessing that just happened to pass into the world through me..

 

As with my daughters, I want to exercise some control over what

happens to the songs for which I was the mere conduit. I don't want

them to be altered, abused, exploited, or used by others for their

own commercial purposes. Developing the proper legal and ethical

instruments to assure me that ability will be tricky. But more than

control, I want my songs, like my daughters, to be free to roam the

world and be loved by as many as can appreciate their occasional

beauty.

 

Whatever models evolve to protect the creation of music, I am not

concerned that we will fail to economically support its makers after

we quit calling it property. For some reason, humans absolutely

require music, and they were providing for the material needs of

musicians for tens of thousands of years before copyright law, just

as they will do so for tens of thousands of years after this brief

and anomalous period has been forgotten..

[Guest]

I think the thing that annoys me most about Napster (aside form the dumb name) is that they are making money, while the artists are not. They just got a 15 million dollar infusion of capital last week and I'm sure none of is earmarked for the artists whom their system allows to be ripped off.

 

I have no problem with people making compilation CDs or tapes for their friends of music that they like (I do it myself); but there's no profit involved in that. Napster is purely a money-making venture, and the fact that they seem to have no intention of giving any money to the artists whose songs pass through their system is quite annoying. At least Gnutella is free, independant and profitless (I'm not condoning its use, though).

 

The other thing I don't understand is why would anyone want to offer their computer as a Napster "server"? Don't these people actually use their computers? Don't the constant multi-megabyte downloads from their computers get annoying after a while. I've never had the luxury of being connected to a T1 line like most of Napster's univerity-based users have, but I have to assume that even at that speed, the large downloads (or involuntary uploads, as the case may be) must be noticeable and must degrade the performace of the computer.

 

Jonathan Hughes

[alphajerk]

ive had the luxury of hanging out for a couple smokes with JPB and have very similar ideas for the destruction of the record industry as it has come to be.

 

the big problem however is that they dont need to "protect" the creation of music. that will happen regardless. i record people everyday creating their music. the industry is more concerned with their stake in the sale. they could really give a rats ass about the musician, just look at any contract will tell you that.

 

i hope the big labels do topple not with a thud but a big bang. a stake driven through their booldsucking hearts. a silver bullet shot into their brain. they have been and still are the vampires who suck life from those who create to fill their own armani pockets. just look at what they have accomplished with the CRAP that is currently released.

 

napster is merely the karmic payback for the 5 billion/million? $$$ they have taken excessively from the consumers.

[croyalroyarkmusic.com]

Several users of this forum have made ridiculous comparisons between Napster and Radio.

 

Radio is in business to make money by broadcasting whatever sponosors will pay to be associated with. If people would be happy listening to bats screwing, that's what would be on the radio.

 

However, the performance orgs (BMI/ASCAP/SESAC etc) take care of collecting royalties for the artists- so it's okay to make a cassette dub of some radio show- the same as using a VCR to tape TV shows or events. Taping of broadcast music and television (and cable) is expected and never discouraged. It's understood that the braodcast version is NOT the same as the orig- the copying process usually degrades the signal even further than the broadcast did.

 

But Napster doesn't broadcast- thereby automatically evading the royalty issue. And, the copies of music, though degraded, are still of sufficient quality that they could easily be used in another application (games, mutimedia, CD ROM, etc.) And because Napster does make money on it, they are effectively robbing writers, publishers, record companies, performers.

 

I had this argument the other day. The other person's position was that it's all greed driven- greed on the part of the artists, writers, publishers and record companies that would make them complain about web access to their creations. I pointed out that it's not greed to collect monies that someone else is making on one's work.

 

So- my position is that if these sites don't make a dime on the providing access to music- then all is okay! Or if they continually play the music on the site (singles not whole albums non-stop) and tell you what's playing (like a juke box) that's okay, too.

 

But mass distribution of music that's not being performed (playing live or recorded playback) is pretty clear thievery- because they are simply distributing music in another storage medium- not merely broadcasting the performance itself.

 

In the old days, if one didn't have enough cash for Brand X LP or 45, friends pooled their money and bought the music together. Or even one guy/girl bought it and lended to the others that wanted to check it out. The circle of friends might have been 5 people, (NOT 5 million.) Record companies expect this kind of small scale copying. It was also understood that the average guy wouldn't go beserk with it because of the costs- (you did have to purchase the blank tapes, didn't you?)

 

I am a professional musician- I make a very good living performing live on concerts and in the theatre. I do sometimes perform concerts that are funded by the MPTF- Music Performance Trust Funds- setup by the recording companies as a way to employ musicians for LIVE performance (restitution of sorts) for the live gigs that records have taken away. Basically the companies kick in a little dough for every record they produce- thereby funding live music somewhere else. Where would records be without musicians? Helping the business that supports your business is just plain smart.

 

If all these internet companies want to do the right thing, they should get together and either kick in to the MPTF, ASCAP, etc, or start their own - maybe the IMTF (Internet Music Trust Fund) where proceeds (along with the blank tape taxes) could go back to the companies, writers, publishers to support the business they are hurting. It could all be based on download count. Helping the businesses that support your business is just plain smart.

 

In my opinion, the (non-writing) artists as benefactors of any of this money is the wrong way to go. The record (45 or LP) was orginally setup as a demonstration of what the band would sound like- so it was understood the live performances are where the artists would make their real money- as has been pointed out in other replies in this thread.

 

I also agree that Napster and the like help artists (performers). But my concern is for the writers and publishers who own the music and the record companies who actually paid for a record's physical production (or own the right manufacture and distribute copies). Fans buy a disc, but only lease the music or data that's on it.

 

What happened to the Tower Music service that, for a small fee, would make compilation tapes/CDs for customers. This seemed the best way. You pay only for what you get. Small royalties paid. Artists are advertised. Everybody's happy.

 

Lastly, another major concern is the fact that coyright owners are never asked to have their music converted to MP3 or some other format. If you wanted to record and put out a new version of "The Christmas Song" you need to get permission from the owner. Similarly, copyight owners should be able to excercise the right to say "NO" to having their music placed in a library of any sort- web or not. They say no having their music associated with certain causes, commercials, movies and stage productions- why not web libraries as well? Some may elect to have it available for free, some may not. But the choice has been taken away.

[Anderton]

That was a very thoughtful reply. Some of the "everything's free on the internet" romance kind of gets sour when you realize that Napster isn't giving any money back to the artists it exploits.

 

It seems we have reached a situation parallel to the great rip-off periods of the 50 and early 60s, when artists naively gave up everything just for the chance of exposure. In this case, it's more nebulous - Napster never signed contracts to pay royalties - but once your music is out there, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Not everyone will be like Limp Bizkit, getting tour support from Napster. How does it feel to know your music is helping to finance someone else's tour (and someone who's making a lot more than you are)?

 

The idea behind Napster is very clever. The concept probably won't go away, no matter what happens in the courts; we'll be dealing with these issues as long as we have digital data.

[alphajerk]

Similarly, copyight owners should be able to excercise the right to say "NO" to having their music placed in a library of any sort- web or not.

 

library of any sort? like a home cd library that the end user has a right to duplicate for their own use. say store on a HD in a compacted form so they dont have to play a cd, oops the rest of the world can see my library and check out a song. i forgot do public libraries have to pay publishers for every checkout of a book? besides, i can identically copy ANY CD OUT bit for bit for less than a tape. who cares about a crappy mp3? if the industry was smart, they would push ahead with 24 bit audio with video capabilities, uh DVD, and move mp3 out like AM radio.

 

and im sick of people whining how they lose money due to napster. i would bet they are doing better. where do bands make their money? on tour. now fans might not be buying albums but they are listening to it and there fore better turnouts at shows, where the money is made for the bands. and napstar is viral software. its not like posting your music at mp3.com. there when somebody DL's your song it just goes to their HD, one more person, whoopee. napster however with its search mechanism will show the file on all the HD's of all the DL's that are connected, more people who have it on their HD, the more people have access to trends regardless of marketed hype. numbers grow exponentially instead of singularly, does that make sense?

 

and most artists dont make that much money on cd sales anyways. i really doubt the labels really care about them too much. its that the industry right now is getting torn up. they are too slow moving right now with the current rate of advancement in technology. KIDS no less are coming up with ways far quicker regardless of legality. you can search for porn on napster and loads of porn sountracks come up. where can you quickly have access to that in real life? its like those lucent technology commercials about 'having every movie in every language ever made.'

 

napster isnt giving the ability to piracy like you mentioned either for somebody to use in games etc. the end user could have easily gone out and bought a copy, have better quality and used in it a game anyways, but they are the ones using the file illegally.

 

i dont know if napster has made a profit yet. hell, the give their software away. i dont see any ads.

 

you make yourself sound like somebody who wont let them see the beauty of it and ultimately freak out on a bad acid trip. mp3 quality doesnt concern me, napster i love, im not worried. if people truely are inspired by what i do, then i will be compensated for my insight. i think also the record industry knows they put out a lot of CRAP MUSIC that cant last in the new iconomy.

 

i do hope one day the art will come back.

[willowmusicprodaol.com]

I commend those of you who respect what the Record Labels have made possible for aspiring young artists and their successes. For those of you want to slap the Record Labels in the face while reaping the benefits of the successes they provided to you in ancient history or current times; how you invest the profits of your earnings determines the future of your stability in years to come. Without the Record Labels the Music Business would have no structure whatsoever and would become a free-lance artist disaster and an open BLACK market for copyright infringements and the piracy of recorded releases. With millions of new artists cropping out of the woodwork everyday and the accessibility of modern technology there would be no discipline in what was thrown out to the consumers. They would have to determine which MP3's were worth downloading and which MP3's were some rich kid who's daddy bought him the tools to record his own material whether he was any good or not.

 

The consumer would have to listen to all the trash from singers who THOUGHT they could sing but instead sounded like a screech owl in the night, engineers who didn't have a clue as to what a hot and cold mix was, and songwriters whose materials would be better off placed on a bathroom stall wall somewhere. As far as the mention of taxes among professionals at different levels throughout the Music Business, allow our government to be the ones who have to step in a monitor what is legally acceptable airplay and see what would happen to the TAXES placed on recorded releases. The Record Labels have a lot of hidden expenses that are not obvious to the AVERAGE JOE and they are discredited for their overwhelming sweeps in PROFIT. The Average Joe does not take into consideration the recovering of all the losses a Label endures before they actually start seeing the profit.

 

With the layers upon layers of Music Business Professionals on the PAYROLL of the Record Labels, to assure the finest quality production in commercial releases, the profits sometimes are not as profound as one might think they are. I would like to ask some of the Professionals inside these Music Forums out on the Web where they get their statistics of the Record Labels getting and 90 % vs. 10% take, from the sales charts? The Record Labels incur expenses in promotions, scouting, artist development, production, touring, Artist Acts that were signed who fell flat on their face and actually cost the Label more than they made for them; and many other aspects. At what point does the recovery of losses turn into a profitable income? Labels assure the finest quality productions in the materials that they release for commercial sales and for audio airplay. A consumer can be certain that they are purchasing a quality product recorded by only the Elite of the selected engineers and they have the comfort of knowing that they can turn on quality music productions at the flip of a switch when visiting their favorite radio stations.

 

Let Napster or any MP3 idealist, who supports the idea of Down with The Record Labels, those dirty B*stards, do the screening process to determine which thousand artists will get airplay and which ten million will go to the recycle bin and see how fast their overhead and hot shot attitudes will deteriorate. Allow them to pay the salaries of the screening personnel and all the others involved and see how long their BUDGET holds out. It's easy to walk in and try to skim the icing off of the cake. It's a sweet deal but when you have to start the cake from scratch and build a foundation for what you represent, you may not have all the ingredients it takes or the endurance required to keep the flavor noteworthy; SOMEONE always has to clean up the mess.

 

As a consumer I wouldn't want to have to listen to millions of sour notes to determine what was worth hearing and what was trash. I appreciate the screening process and the expertise delivered by the Record Label professionals in their selections of providing the best engineers for sound quality, the trainers selected for artist development, the Artwork designers and the WHOLE NINE YARDS. It would take the joy out of listening to Radio as we know it today if the Record Labels go down and the market goes to free-lance works. It would be like buying the old vinyl LP where you bought the album because you loved the Hit that was getting National Airplay; after buying it you found that the Hit receiving the airplay was the only song on the entire compilation worth putting the needle to. Nevertheless, it was always the album you grabbed to party with your friends, RIGHT? I don't think so, it's the one that got stuffed on a shelf somewhere and collected dust; you never bothered to buy any more albums by that particular artist because the first round was a complete waste of money.

 

It is easy to lose the interest of an audience when there is TOO MUCH diversity or a lack of procedure. The Record Labels provide us categorized styles so that if you want Rock, you hear stations with Rock; turn on the Country, youll be kickin up your boots. This isnt just something that happens; ITS ORGANIZED and organization costs money to pay the salaries. Does any Music Professional out here think that if there were to come a day where the Record Labels would fall to the wayside, that the Founders and Brains of Internet would not more than exceedingly take their places in ripping off the entertainers and the engineers? Answer me this, did your phone rates go down and your services improve when they busted Bell telephone and AT & T? Take away the Labels and you take away the STRUCTURE. Take away the structure and you lose the FOUNDATION. Lose the foundation and its anybodys game where RULES DO NOT APPLY. Where rules do not apply try to find anyone whos willing to play the game! Its a cut and dried issue, if you take away the hunger in sales that feeds the mouths of the Developers and the Artists then you starve the Artist and lose the Development. Its as easy as that, NOBODY works just for the FUN OF IT! The Music Business is a JOB that pays the bills when it is your chosen career field. If the Artists and Labels cant make money at what they are doing then they will seek employment elsewhere! Where does that leave the middle-man who would not have a job if it were not for the Creative Talent that sells and Brains that Know how to Promote the Sales? OUT OF A JOB!

 

Ignorance would be an appropriate term to apply to Music Professionals who think that the Record Labels are making ALL the money. People see the millions of dollars being earned by the Artists achieving superstardom but they neglect to tally all of the expenses put forth by the Record Labels to build those Artists into who they are. Also they fail to recognize the LOSSES incurred by the Labels for the thousands of Artists who never hit the charts. To recover their losses from the dead seeds the Record Labels have to recover expenses to replenish and nourish their foundation to seek and promote new talent for the ever-changing markets of the listeners and to do this they must draw from the funds made available by those Artists who are successful. It's called balance! In a more effective terminology, GOOD BUSINESS!

 

Without the backing and support of the Record Labels, Artists could continue playing bar gigs for a living or, as people from the normal NON-creative society would say, get a real job. To the middle-man Music Professionals who are screaming about the Labels raking in all the profits I say this to you, GET REAL, GET A LIFE and GET RESPONSIBLE. GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE AND STOP BEING SELF-CENTERED AND UNAPPRECIATIVE PIGS.

 

Napster is a bunch of hotshot kids who think they know it all and they don't have a clue as to how the BUSINESS end of it works, as some of the posts made by music professionals inside of professional music forum sites on the web are representative of the same lack of insight. Half of the business is in the HYPE put out to the consumers to back the Artists, PROMOTIONS. Imagine this: Would Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and some of the other teen idols have the super star appeal if they had the visual presentation of MAMA CASS? Without support of visual promotions the Music Business would have to be based STRICTLY upon musical TALENTS. That would leave a lot of famous people out in the cold now wouldn't it? Napster has not provided any funds in the promotions of these superstars and therefore they are not entitled to reap benefits from their successes without paying dues, just like anyone else! It takes money to make money and to just walk in a take something for nothing, well somebody needs to get their hands smacked real hard.

 

I agree that it is not an issue for one person to record a friends CD to listen to, it has always happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. This practice is a minimal loss to the parties involved in royalty claims and not monetarily worth pursuing by Record Labels. It is when a third party comes in and gains profits from other peoples properties, such a Napster and others representative of the same practice. IT'S BLATANT THIEVERY AND HIGHLY ILLEGAL. These parties should be prosecuted and held accountable for reimbursement to the rightful owners of the properties infringed upon. NO QUESTIONS ASK!!! It's not a matter of the Record Labels making the major bucks, they made the ARTISTS marketable didn't they? Theyre entitled to their profits. The ARTIST made the song and he is entitled to his profits! When you take something that doesn't belong to you and you get caught you pay the price. The Labels are justified in seeking to recover their damages as well as all parties holding ownership rights from Napster.

 

I am a individual born and raised in the Land of Oz who has never had the golden opportunities to communicate openly with Professionals inside of the Music Business until discovering what the Internet had to offer. I am very appreciative of the technology that abounds us. Its amazing to find everything we need to know about anything that we could possibly dream of at the touch of our fingertips. I am also a creator who takes great pride in my works of art in my musical compositions and I frown very heavily on anyone abusing the technology to shoot the songbird that sings a precious melody from the sky. For all of those accomplished musicians who denounce the Record Labels and cheer for their demise while suggesting that Napster is a good payback, the Web has opened up a new door for TALENT world wide. Step aside and grope in your self-pity because there are still those of us who would respect and honor the privilege of having the representation of a Sound and Solid Industry such as a Major Record Label. The Web has opened an avenue for SERIOUS musicians to knock on doors until they create an opportunity. Go ahead and market your materials on MP3s, if I cant buy it at the record stores or purchase a professionally mastered production on a CD from a licensed distributor, I wont be buying any of your materials.

 

WILLOW

 

Willow Music Productions

[croyalroyarkmusic.com]

Alphajerk

If you re-read my post it specifically refers to web sites that make money on other's music without making payments to the artists', companies, etc. Obviously a public library is not one of these "for-profit" entities. Your own personal library is exempt, unless you're using that library to make money in some way- like providing music to a pay event; or charging $$ to make tape dubs.

 

I also stated that I really don't care about the performing artist making any money on CD/tape/record sales. I believe the performer should perform to make money- which means LIVE MUSIC. My concern is that copyright owners (the people who own the material by writing it and or publishing it) have a right to compensation if their work is being used to generate money for someone else.

 

If record companies disappeared tomorrow and all recorded music went straight to the web for MP3 (or whatever) release- the copyrights would still be in force. Performers would still have to play live concerts for their money- and it still would not be right to use any copyrighted music to make your wallet fatter without paying a royalty- which to my understanding as an ASCAP member, is incredibly low. So low, that there's no real reason not to pay since you're already making money on the music.

 

So the record companies are in real danger of being replaced in an all download society. That could just be the evolution of business. So be it. Are web business going to put up the loot for videos and any other promotion of these downloads? Whatever comes from this- the creative talent must be provided for- or there will be nothing to download.

[Guest]

A little "blue sky" postulation here.... I see the day when, when you buy a "stereo" it doesn't include a radio or cd player or whatever. You pay a fee and get every piece of music that has ever been recorded. Your "music center" is constantly downloading all the latest music. It quickly leans your likes and dislikes, and establishes a "playlist" over time, occasionally throwing in something off the wall to see hwat you think. thsi playlist will include everything new and old, and can change from hour to hour or specific times throughout the day depending on mood or situation. In otherwords, an advanced "neural net" will do the job now done by record companies... but instead of forcing us en masse to the same music, it does it on a presonal basis.

 

Fantasy?? People are already working on all the necessary parts. i give it 10-20 years at most.

[alphajerk]

yea, i could see that. everyone pays a "copyright fee" to have access to music and then they would even be able to track whos playing what and how many times and the money could be allotted that way

 

croyal, sorry, it was late when i wrote that and i was half asleep. i was just noting that somebody using the music for selling it is a violation but you show me an actual website that is MAKING money. plus, most business conduct themselves in accordance with the law. if i was to use a copywritten piece of material for commercial reasons, i would just contact harry fox agency to begin with. nobody really wants to go to court.

 

i just dont think napster is as bad as they make it out to seem and same about mp3 files in whole. they are very similar to tape rather than cd's. like i was sloppily saying above, napster has a way of floating hits while the shit goes nowhere. regardless to what willow was babbling about, i got too bored to read, you dont have to sift though garbage that the MAJOR LABELS RELEASE??? pretty much all of it is garbage, shit, dung, terdballs, dingleberries. everything is so shallow. i have found BETTER music than major labels are smart enough to support on the web through the advent of mp3. i have contacted those artists to get the real cd, paid them, an i LEGALLY OWN IT. i think the majors and willow are worried more about the quality of what they put out.

[Guest]

Napster is definitely making money. Maybe the corporation is not yet, but the individuals certainly are. They have an office in California, a few dozen employees, and CEO who certainly isn't working for free. Sure, they're giving away they're software, but so does AOL, Netscape, Microsoft (with IE and Outlook Express), and several others. Napster got an infusion of 15 million dollars in capital last week (presumably under the assumption that the investor will make that money back and more). I have no idea what their business plan is (and they might not either), but there are people working for Napster who are making their living by allowing copyright infringement. Sure, I'd love to see a better system than the current situation with large record labels is, but Napster ain't it.

 

 

Jonathan Hughes

[willowmusicprodaol.com]

Details are boring to those who can't comprehend the complexity. Subspace, thank you for stating that "NOBODY invests $15,000,000 without motive and the potential redemption of their funds!" You are a being of great intellectual properties from within. Napster is no longer some CAMPUS KID with a fast idea to make mockery of the Record Labels and the copyright owners. I encourage those of you who haven't already done so to visit Napster's website and view their staff of employees. These people are no longer HOT SHOT kids with a HOT idea, they are Attorney's who know the copyright laws inside and out; here is a small clip from their site embracing their investment group:

 

Funding

 

Napster, Inc. recently closed a $15 million Series C venture capital funding round. The round was led by Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, with additional investments from Angel Investors LP and other existing investors. As part of the investment in Napster, Hummer Winblad partners Hank Barry and John Hummer joined the Board of Directors and Hank Barry assumed the role of interim CEO.

---

 

Did JPG say something about fattening attorneys in his article, well visit Napster's site and read the profiles and credentials of the staff members involved NOW, then take a look at the positions being advertised for fulfillment. I won't make the long and BORING this time so that simple minds don't grow weary trying to make sense of the content. Keep in mind that a drug dealer will bait their prey with free drugs until they hook them and then.... well, the joke's on the junkie!

[willowmusicprodaol.com]

HERE'S A GOOD STATEMENT OF WHAT NAPSTER IS ALL ABOUT; THIS IS ONE OF THEIR JOB LISTINGS.

 

 

Server Architect

 

Napster's core innovations lie in our server technology. It provides services to give our users access to our virtual collection of libraries and songs and allows users with common interests to chat about music. You will architect, design, and help implement our next generation server that will reliably scale to support millions of users.

 

This individual must have at least 6 years of Object Oriented programming creating high performance UNIX server solutions. Experience in 3-tier architectures is preferred. An understanding of the issues involved in collecting, storing, and managing large scale data sets is recommended. A degree in Computer Science or related technical discipline is required.

Interested? Send your resume to jobs@napster.com.

---

 

<<< An understanding of the issues involved in collecting, storing, and managing large scale data sets is recommended.

---

 

Isn't Napster claiming that they don't STORE any properties within their own data banks? Why are they advertising for knowledge that would be unecessary if what they proclaim is true???? I SMELL A RAT!!!

[alphajerk]

i reread it thinking i might of missed your brain in all your babble but nope, still a brainwashed regurgitation recited by some corporate drone.

 

im done with this thread. i dont like what the majors are putting in the stores right now. so i dont buy their product either. i do order directly from the musicians now. its a shame you still have your blinders on.

 

napster was just a program written that turned out to be of great use to the end users. unfortunately, mp3's are really only good for promotion purposes. you cant seriously listen to them. napster and mp3.com and whoever else plans to store data will have a rough time licensing subscriptions with sub-sonic quality. i do think they will evolve, and the majors will too although a lot slower, into some sort of piped music supplier. subscribable music. the money will start flowing but not until the packets really start flowing and higher resolution can be used. the same will happen to movies, tv shows, etc. they are all vapor-mediums. transmittable. unfortunately, everyone is making a lot about nothing and ultimately giving mp3 its power. they are actually laying the ground for the future that hasnt quite gotten here. cd's dont have copy protection anyways, cd sales are going up. quit bitching and whining.

 

its almost like introducing mongoose to get rid of the snakes, now theres a mongoose problem.

 

i dont like the practices of the modern record industry. less the 1% of what they release has any redeemable value. the rest is pure drivel. they spare no expense in doing so. technology is changing more than how people exchange music. it is changing how we make it, record it, think about it. technology is the mongoose, not mp3's. it has put power in the common man hands. now its just up to how much they want it and how much the world wants it.

[JES]

Willow, you keep referring to the business as if it's ordained by god or nature. You know who doesn't tolerate variation in radio playlists? It's not listeners, it's advertisers -- listeners will happily flip from station to station looking for music. Advertisers want as predictable audience as possible, and since that radio audience is sold to advertisers in the corporate radio game, we need our top 20s, top 100s, and 10 easily identifiable formats.

 

The business could change dramatically if you simply find another way to make money at it.

 

Then there's the matter of megabucks versus a decent living. I think Napster bankrolling Limp Bizkit is basically socialism for the rich -- everyone contributes, the elites benefit. That's shitty. But so are most record contracts. This whole sorting out quality is much more important for people who want to sort out profitability. I sort out quality by listening to a lot of music and choosing what I like. Most listeners do.

 

One more thing -- there's this myth that if a major label doesn't put it out, it's not there. Absolutely untrue in this day and age. Most CDs can be gotten by any decent store, whether they're released by a major label or a small time outfit.

 

So all I'm saying it these appeals to "the business" and "economics" with the fervor of religious faith are absolutely unconvincing. You can't just jump up and down and insist that it's so, it must be that way, and we'd better do as we're told. *People* built the music economy. If enough of us think it sucks and work together to build another one, we can and should do that.

 

--JES

[willowmusicprodaol.com]

Alphajerk, you're right in the fact that MP3's have no competitive sound quality. Listening to a computer transmitted composition takes all the warmth out of the production and resembles the sound quality of AM radio in the 60's. MP3's sound like they were generated inside of a tin can. As radio has evolved with the times, so will the production of on-line musical transmissions. It's inevitable!

 

The Record Industry will have to evolve with the times by jumping on the band wagon and learning the new technology. By co-mingling the expertise of the past known by the Record Industry professionals in providing the best sound quality with the innovation of the future; it will be to only way the Labels will stand a chance of survival.

 

The Napster issue is not a concern of competition for the Record Labels and the transmission of MP3 files, it is a concern in providing for the creative talents at risk of losing out. COPYRIGHTS PROTECT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE OUR ENTERTAINMENT WORLD POSSIBLE. It doesn't matter who gets the cut for the production of sound, people will buy products for the Sound Quality and the best man wins. You cut the proceeds that go to the creator while others are making a fortune off of his talent... he will remove his contributions to the society. Without the creators, there is no music! Without the MUSIC there is no market to fight over!

Pay the damn royalties to those who provide the entertainment, the creators.

 

I don't give a crap if it's the Labels or the MP3's just pay the one's who make it all possible. Protect our copyrights!

 

Willow

[Anderton]

>>A little "blue sky" postulation here.... I see the day when, when you buy a "stereo" it doesn't include a radio or cd player or whatever. You pay a fee and get every piece of music that has ever been recorded. Your "music center" is constantly downloading all the latest music. It quickly leans your likes and dislikes, and establishes a "playlist" over time, occasionally throwing in something off the wall to see hwat you think. <<

 

I think this is the way things are going:

 

The idea of a "CD collection" will become obsolete. You will connect, through high-speed lines, to the equivalent of a global jukebox that indeed knows your profile and has a bitchin' search engine. You can stream unlimited amounts of lo-fi material to check out if you like something; if you want to hear something, you pay 25 cents a tune or a dollar per CD. You don't record it; it's like radio, except you get to hear exactly what you want. If you pay $10, it unlocks a code and lets you record it to CD-RW, DVD, or whatever.

 

How did I come up with these numbers? The last survey I read shows that people listen to a CD an average of 15 times. Assume $15 for a CD. That's $1 a play. The average CD has 10 songs, so a quarter a song seems like a reasonable markup, and $1 as a "quantity discount." $10 seems like a fair price for outright ownership.

 

All of this will be tracked, making it very easy to distribute royalties. There will be no plastic discs, no use of petroleum products to make them, no shipping costs, no returns, no cracked cases, etc.

 

Let's suppose you listen to 2 CDs a day, every day, during a 30 day month -- that's 60 CDs you get to hear. Your online music bill is $60 -- about the cost of buying 4 CDs.

 

And if you have a big record collection, think how much easier it will be to move. And if you're at a hotel that has a jukebox connection, you can listen to your favorite music away from home.

[Guest]

I've been following the whole Napster situation with quite a bit of interest and a healthy (I think) dose of skepticism as to the motives of all involved for some time. In my eyes, it really boils down to a couple of basic issues:

 

1. Does an artist have the right to control their own work?

 

2. Does an artist have the right to be compensated for that work?

 

All other arguments seem to me to be not addressing the point or disingenuous. Example: The statement that 'artists should make their living by performing'. Where does this leave artists like Andy Partridge from XTC, a brilliant songwriter who suffers from severe stagefright? Are we to be deprived of his songs because he doesn't perform, since giving away his work would leave him without the resources to create new recordings? (perhaps a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it's a valid logical tool). Do you, as creative artists, want to have others dictating how and when you can practice your art? How is Napster distributing your work without compensation to you any different than being taken advantage of by a major record label? Seems to me that either way, the creator of the work is getting the short end of the stick.

 

Just some more reference points on the graph of public thought.

 

George

 

[This message has been edited by vanwag@earthlink.net (edited 06-06-2000).]

[willowmusicprodaol.com]

Does the 15 times of listening apply to the "Over Forty Crowd?" Give a CD of Britney Spears to an 8 to 14 year old girl and she'll listen to it 15 times during the first day!

 

Willow

[Guest]

As an addendum to my "blue sky" thoughts... let advertisements be played (targeted to you by similar AI software) and you get your listens for free, just like radio. I don't mind ads so much if it's something I'm interested in, just have no use for all the stuff I could care less about.

 

What about the radio stations?? Maybe we could turn those frequencies back to the people... or, more likely, cell phone expansion (g).

[Guest]

I can see that the whole Napster thing hit a deep nerve. If you want to see a strictly silly take on the whole thing and have a good laugh... check out:

 

Napster BAD!

Money GOOD!

 

at: http://www.romp.com

[Chip McDonald]

Willow wrote:

 

>I commend those of you who respect what the >Record Labels have made possible for

>aspiring young artists and their successes.

 

Yes, I thank the labels for making music a totally commercialized instant gratification outlet for mediocrity.

 

>while reaping the benefits of the successes >they provided to you

 

I'm still sowing myself...

 

>Without the Record Labels

>the Music Business would have no structure >whatsoever and would become a

>free-lance artist disaster

 

That might happen. That might not be a disaster.

 

>daddy bought him the tools to record his own >material whether he was any good or

 

The record industry is the arbiter of what is good or not? Interesting....

 

>The consumer would have to listen to all the >trash from singers who THOUGHT they

>could sing

 

... unlike all of the perfect singers in the pop industry right now, right?

 

>was, and songwriters whose materials

>would be better off placed on a bathroom

>stall wall somewhere. As far as the

 

Yep, everyone in modern pop music are definitely talented song writers. Promotion had *nothing* to do with their success, only pure talent!

 

>AVERAGE JOE and they are discredited for >their overwhelming sweeps

>in PROFIT. The Average Joe does not take >into consideration the recovering of all the

>losses a Label endures before they actually

 

Ok, explain to this average Joe what those losses are and how they're losses while making a "sweeping" profit at the same time?

 

>on the PAYROLL of the

>Record Labels, to assure the finest quality

>production in commercial releases, the

 

Hmph. To assure sterilization of music perhaps.

 

>are not as profound as one might think they

 

Profits are profits. If you had said margin it would have made more sense.

 

> sales charts? The >Record Labels incur expenses in promotions, >scouting, artist

 

The problem here is that you're viewing the label as a bank. You're asserting that the label shouldn't have any risk in the outlay of money for promotion. The label is a partner with the artist: the artist provides the music, and the label distributes it as it sees fit. The label should share the responsibility for failure with the artist.

 

>face and actually cost the Label more than >they made for them; and many other

 

So, it's the artists responsibility to make money for the label? Interesting point of view.

 

>point does the recovery of losses turn into >a profitable income?

 

If a clothing stores opens but the owner picks the wrong clothes to stock - and likewise doesn't sell anything, does anyone expect the owner to have rights to recover losses "somehow"? No, that's absurd. That's called a failed business. If the only way the record industry can survive is by gouging the artist to cover it's losses then it is a failed business.

 

>Labels assure the finest quality productions >in the materials that they release for

 

No they don't. They insure a stereotypical standard of production based on the presumption that that is what the consumer *only* wants.

 

I'll take a badly recorded but *inspired* recording over a sterile compressed and thin "quality production" of mediocrity any day.

 

>certain that they are

>purchasing a quality product

 

I would like to purchase some Good Music instead of a "quality product" myself.

 

>recorded by only the Elite of the selected

 

Puhleeze....

 

>comfort of knowing that they can turn on >quality music productions at

 

Thank goodness one can hear that "quality" on the radio these days...

 

>dirty B*stards, do the screening process to >determine which thousand

>artists will get airplay and which ten >million will go to the recycle bin and see

 

There's 10 million bands in the U.S.? 10 percent of the population are playing in bands? A thousand new artists gets airplay on the radio?

 

>screening personnel and all the others

 

How did the poor record industry manage before there were "screening personnel"?

 

>foundation for what you represent, you may >not have all the ingredients it takes or

 

The problem is that you think the foundation for modern music starts with promotion instead of music. Good music, if given exposure, will sell itself.

 

>As a consumer I wouldn't want to have to >listen to millions of sour notes to

 

Oh, the horror.... thank you, Great Record Industry, for protecting us Average Joes from hearing bad notes! Of course, one *never* hears bad notes on the radio when listening to "quality product"..

 

>determine what was worth hearing and what >was trash.

 

Do you realize how pompous you sound, proporting to be able to determine what is worth hearing and what is trash? How many stories are there of ultra successful acts being passed over by various labels before someone decided they were "worth hearing"? Absurd...

 

>I appreciate the screening

>process and the expertise delivered by the >Record Label professionals

 

.... and thankfully we peasants accept what grubs we can scrounge for ourselves! My, the State is so generous and caring!

 

>the Record Labels go

>down and the market goes to free-lance

 

First of all, the record labels aren't going to "go down", unless they continue to keep their heads in the sand. Their function is changing and ultimately they'll change with it, or another agency will supplant them which will then be the "Record Label".

 

If you really believe in all this added value the label is providing there is really nothing to fear, is there?

 

> Airplay; after buying it you found that the >Hit receiving the airplay was the only song

>on the entire compilation worth putting the >needle to. Nevertheless, it was always

 

I guess the labels didn't pay their "Screening personel" enough back then to provide a "quality product". Of course, everyone knows no quality product was made in music back when the LP ruled supreme. Geez, I would *hate* for things to go back to that state of being...

 

>albums by that particular artist because the >first round was a complete

>waste of money.

 

That's pretty typical modern label wisdom, isn't it?

 

>the interest of an audience when there is >TOO MUCH diversity or a

 

More modern label wisdom....

 

>The Record Labels provide us categorized >styles so that if you

 

Now I'm really beginning to think I'm the victim of a troll...

 

> want Rock, you >hear stations with Rock; turn on the >Country, youll be kickin up your

 

You really must be in the industry, because you obviously don't know *what* people want to hear. The one thing *everyone* in the REAL world complains about is having to hear the same stuff on the radio, no diversity. It's rare one encounters someone who actively chooses to listen to the radio (unless they have no choice) these days for that reason.

 

>the Founders and Brains of Internet would >not more than exceedingly take their places >in ripping off the entertainers and the

>engineers? Answer me this, did your

>phone rates go down and your services

 

This demonstrates you don't understand the internet, either.

 

>game where RULES DO NOT APPLY. Where rules

 

Guess what? The foundation is the *medium*, not the people who are the tertiary keepers of the mode of distribution. Music is going to continue on regardless of what happens to your perception of the industry.

 

>hunger in sales that feeds the mouths of the >Developers and the Artists then you

>starve the Artist and lose the Development.

 

You must not have met any real artists then, because you certainly don't understand the drives of one.

 

>Its as easy as that, NOBODY works just

>for the FUN OF IT!

 

That's why countless acts sign agreements where they make nothing and keep hacking at it in the face of Certain Doom?

 

Sigh. You really don't understand.

 

MUSIC ISN'T WORK, IT'S is *FUN*!!! Work is standing in a ditch in 110 degree weather with a shovel, or mopping floors so you can buy milk for your kids. Do you think John Coltrane wasn't having fun? Jimi Hendrix? The Beatles? They weren't exactly thinking "off to work we go".....

 

>The Music Business is a JOB that pays the >bills when it is your chosen career field.

 

No, hopefully you can pay the bills doing music so you can continue to do it because it is FUN. It's a lot easier to pay the bills doing other things.

 

>and Brains that Know how to Promote the

>Sales? OUT OF A JOB!

 

Yep, takes a lot of brains to put a cute 15 year old girl, who sounds like a frog croaking,in a skin tight latex outfit to promote a song.

 

>the expenses put forth by the Record Labels >to build those Artists into who they are.

 

If the labels are not going to put out any expenditure on their own - why should they take part in sharing the profit?

 

>GOOD BUSINESS!

 

I'm getting ill....

 

>Artists could continue playing bar gigs for

>a living

 

...and playing sour notes?

 

>CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE AND STOP BEING

 

The credit is due to the artists, period.

 

>SELF-CENTERED AND UNAPPRECIATIVE PIGS.

 

Oink oink.

 

>Napster is a bunch of hotshot kids who think >they know it all

 

Could it just be that the root of all of this is that the technology snuck up and bit everyone on the rear?

 

>and they don't have a clue as to how the >BUSINESS end of it works, as some of the

 

You've blathered about the BUSINESS end of things incessantly, as if that's all there was to playing music. You say it's work, a means to an end. The people behind Napster see it the same way from their point of view. They're not in the music industry, but the software industry. Do you care that Software Company X went out of business last year because their Direct-X plug in didn't sell enough?

 

>visual presentation of MAMA CASS? Without >support of visual

 

The point is that the record industry has turned the MUSIC business into the QUALITY PRODUCT business and is now bellyaching because people are rebelling against that machine. If the nature of the machine changed then people's attitude would change. As it stands people view downloaded music as "Quality Product" instead of someone's artistic property. That is the record industry's fault.

 

>promotions the Music Business would have to >be based STRICTLY upon musical

>TALENTS. That would leave a lot of famous >people out in the cold now wouldn't it?

 

Er... yeah? This *is* a joke, isn't it? You're actually arguing for feeling sorry for talentless but attractive "artists" because they won't be able to make a living at music????

 

>Napster has not provided any funds in the

>promotions of these superstars and

 

The local cable company doesn't worry about non-successful television show stars going on the dole, either. One doesn't blame the telephone book because the telephone company didn't subsidize the businesses whose numbers are contained inside. The local used goods newspaper doesn't offer compensation to local stores who lose business due to the resale of items.

 

BTW - Napster is redundant. There are plenty of other programs floating around now that do the same thing, and not only are they free but they're public domain. You have no one to sue....

 

>Labels making the major bucks, they made the >ARTISTS marketable didn't they?

 

The ARTISTS *are* the market. Geez... Nirvana was making their own market before they broke, same thing with Dave Matthews... What the labels do is *market* people who *aren't* artists...

 

>market your materials on MP3s, if I cant >buy it at the record stores or purchase a

>professionally mastered production on a CD >from a licensed distributor, I wont be

>buying any of your materials.

 

That's nice. Have a good day.

[Doug Robinson]

Re the Barlow editorial:

 

What a dork. I read this last month. Just because this guy co-wrote the lyrics to some (but by no means ALL) Grateful Dead songs, doesn't make him an expert in "the music business." The record industry had very little impact on the Dead phenomena. The Dead were famous for their very deliberate philosophical stand in favor of letting fans tape and rebroadcast and swap their live shows. Their record sales were always disappointing...duh, wonder why?

 

But they certainly earned a good living. Merchandising was perfect for them--they had a following that wanted to be associated with the Dead community, so branded apparel was a natural fit. Good for them, but not sustainable for a lot of other artists who don't and will never have that kind of following...which is approximately everyone else except for about 50 or 100 bands at a time. And frankly, if it's T-shirts you want to sell, why not cut out the middleman--those pesky musicians? Anyway, I'm sure Sony can afford higher quality graphic artists to work on their t-shirts than indie labels anyway, so nothing really changes.

 

And I got a nice chuckle out of someone here suggesting that musicians should earn their living by touring. Of course, that would have put post 1966 Beatles, Randy newman (who plays about 2 gigs a year) and quite a few others on the welfare lines http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif. Seriously, touring is great for some, not great for others. It's expensive, and it is also a huge money loser for lots of bands. The main point, though, is that it's unrealistic.

 

But back to this Barlow guy. It's just one more guy saying "It's worth it to screw the artists out of their mechanical royalties, because we're really aiming to kill the record labels." What gives him the right to suggest such a thing? He has NEVER gone on the road and played a note of music. he hooked onto the coattails of a hugely successful thing, and is now trying to say "Hey, it can be like this for you too! Artists don't really "own" their songs..." Earth to Barlow: Music is wonderful and fills the atmosphere with joy, but it costs a fuck of a lot of money to record and market a CD's worth of songs, even today. Why should the end result of THAT painstaking, bloodletting, bankrupting process be free?

 

peace and love, baby.

 

The answer is, indeed, to deconstruct the current system, which is unfair and based on a flawed philosophy that artists are insecure wimps who will graefully give away the store just for a shot at fame. Disgusting, really. And not altogether untrue.

 

But to dynamite the current system, and to encourage young people to take what they want without paying the artists for it, and without thinking at all about the impact on working musicians today, then to wrap it all in a neat little package of "Viva la Revolucion!" type babble...it's just downright evil. you and I know that if it was easy to catch and punish someone for this form of copyright infringement, they wouldn't be doing it at the clip of 1,000,000 downloads a day or whatever. So what you have is a 'revolution' whose roots are based primarily in the fact that they can do anything they want and not get caught. Oooh. How brave. Kind of cheapens the concept of "revolution," doesn't it?

 

feh. I bet if you stole his car, he'd turn you in in a heartbeat.

 

Um..what was the question again?