Napster: End of the Record Biz?

[alphajerk]

im sure he'd just shoot you.

 

and dave matthews allows live taping and sells a good number of albums.

 

to most artists, this stealing doesnt really affect them. they arent getting paid anyways. their debt to the labels with 87% interest will just become a loss regardless. the dozen stars on the roster might live nicely for a while, eventually make it back into civilian life. the few has been leftovers still go (stones, bowie, aerosmith, et al) although their 15 minutes was up years ago.

 

but now technology has made it for the artsits to no longer have to take on massive debts from the labels. its more than napster when JPB is referring to destroying the majors.

 

 

and a band NOT touring? whats the point then really? ooooh a studio band, who really cares? i am a studio band, do i care if i make money doing it? no. its just play. and if youre losing money on touring year after year, then nobody is stealing your music on the net, or they would be at your show.

[Doug Robinson]

<>

 

So? I am not trying to be antagonistic, but what is the point of even saying this, seriously? You can conclude nothing from this. We don't know what "a good number of albums" is, yet it seems to mean something to you.

 

<>

 

That's exactly the attitude that frustrates me so much--"Hey, they're getting ripped off anyway. What difference does it make to rip them off a little more?" It's called "rubbing salt in a wound." And I know several people who are, indeed, getting paid for mechanical royalties, including a guy who can't work anymore due to illness. You seriously don't know anyone making money from royalties?

 

There is no question that the current system sucks--I believe it is dead but it doesn't know it, much like a deer who has been shot through the heart but keeps running for a little while. I just think the next step is a doozy, and we ought to put our heads together and not encourage kids to take whatever they want, without the artists' or labels' permission. Why? Because its wrong.

 

<>

 

Excellent. We've got a shot at creating a new artist-driven system. And how do we react? By looking the other way as people make it impossible for recording artists to make money from their recordings. What do we say? "Oh, I'm sorry--I always assumed you were earning a living from those t-shirts..."

 

<< its more than napster when JPB is referring to destroying the majors.>>

 

I am all for jettisoning the old system. I just fear a new system, based on selfishness, that continues to screw over the very artists we say we love.

 

<

 

So now you're going to define the job of being a musician, and anyone who doesn't fit that description doesn't deserve consideration? Like I said, some people get off performing, others get off creating. Anyone who thinks Steely Dan was primarily a "performing band," please raise your hand. Anyone who thinks that the world isn't just a bit cooler place because Randy Newman has done what he's done for almost 3 decades now, please leave the room.

 

<>

 

I'm new 'round these parts, AJ. I don't know what skill level you are at, or even if you are a composer with anything to say. But tell me you understand that there are a lot of people doing it, loving it, and making money at it without touring. I don't know why--maybe they're better than you at it, maybe they're just lucky.

 

<< and if youre losing money on touring year after year, then nobody is stealing your music on the net, or they would be at your show.>>

 

This way of thinking punishes new bands who haven't built their following yet. Anyway, this whole line of reasoning--if you ARE making money touring, then you won't mind if someone steals it back from you--is just illogical to me. Take it out of the realm of music, and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if it happened to you. (Some would argue that the IRS is already working on that, and see how popular they are?)

[Anderton]

So what do musicians offer of value for which they can get paid, eat food, put gas in the car, buy health insurance, change strings, etc.?

 

Music, of course. People like to listen to music, no doubt about that.

 

If the "internet thinking" that exists is actually valid, then what matters to any commercial endeavor is attracting eyeballs. That's not actually such a new idea; a magazine like Guitar Player has lots of qualified eyeballs, which allows them to sell ads.

 

So far the emphasis for getting money to artists has been for physical product (CD etc.). But music can also be a transitory product, like something that streams in real time.

 

It seems to me that eventually, artists will get a cut of traffic on web sites, TV shows, etc., wherever their music shows up. Already, we have that with blanket licensing agreements. What about Radio Shack promoting a Jewel concert to show off HDTV? I bet she made something nice off of that, but didn't sell one piece of "product."

 

I think you'll see more and more companies supporting artists in order to gain some kind of association. Already, we have Alanis Morrisette and MP3.com, Limp Bizkit and Napster. Maybe Roland would want to pay Allen Holdsworth for the privilege of putting his music on their site to promote the VG-8 -- everytime someone downloaded one of his demo tunes, he'd get a chunk of change. This would also promote the physical product itself, which would still be around.

 

So I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that new income streams need to exist to make up for ones that are drying up. Okay, so CD sales go down due to people downloading MP3s. At some point, it has to be recognized that whoever is making it possible to download MP3s is making money off of musicians, whether we're talking Napster or Dell computers.

 

Maybe it's time to go back to the concept of sponsorship rather than sales. It used to be that the king had court musicians who were basically on the payroll. Today's huge corporations are the "kings" of today's society. They contribute to entities like PBS...maybe the more music-related ones will start pumping money into ASCAP and BMI, to be distributed in the usual ways.

 

Hope this all made sense...

[alphajerk]

yea, but musicians in the "kings court" didnt always get paid and were sometimes lucky to even keep their life.

 

and there are many ways to skin a cat. musicians who are simply composers that dont tour can sell songs to any of the dominating corporations for advertising and other uses. the fact is that artists have NEVER really made money from CD sales to fans so who really cares??? now things are changing. i dont give a crap about mp3, im more fearful of broadband access that can transfer 40MB uncompressed files instantly. mp3 is like radio. nobody pays for hearing those songs.

 

but the CDR is more damaging to the industry than mp3.

 

fact is mp3.com lost 18mil last quarter, Napster hasnt made any money, none of the mp3 sites have made a dime. the internet commerce is FREE EVERTHING. what about porn magazine sales? they have got to have gone down.

 

put it this way, mp3 doesnt concern me with it taking from my artists, neither does napster. it only enhances, like a radio station. but i also am in support for DVDaudio for better resolution but also for some copy protection scheme like cd's dont have.

 

and i like to put more faith in the honesty of people. if we lose that, i think that musicians starving (which they ALREADY do) will be the least of our problems as the human race.

 

and dave matthews sells MILLIONS and MILLIONS of albums, thats why you should pay attention, phish also is a good model. grateful dead didnt because their studio albums SUCKED.

[Doug Robinson]

<>

 

That's a nice thought, but I can't see a motivation for TV shows to change what they're doing now, which is typically to pay as little as possible for music.

 

<< Already, we have that with blanket licensing agreements. What about Radio Shack promoting a Jewel concert to show off HDTV? I bet she made something nice off of that, but didn't sell one piece of "product.">>

 

Again, I am not opposed to this concept, but it hardly works for anyone outside of the top 50 or so artists. As kickass as I may be, putting my face at the Ford website isn't likely to increase test drives of

Thunderbirds.

 

I have, howdver, persuaded several corporations to sponsor the creation of TDWR CD compilations, which are then branded with their logo and given away. So there might be a way to extend that for lesser know artists.

[Anderton]

Things change really fast here on the net...

 

Seems MP3.com is downpedaling the "screw the record labels" angle a bit more these days, and instead trying to re-cast itself as an "operating system for music" that will work with record companies to make streaming music more commonplace. Gee, they make a few agreements with the majors, and all of a sudden they're part of the industry...

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Napster changes to a warmer, fuzzier image...not that of pirating, but being more of an "artist development" site.

 

I always felt that when a particular form of music started showing up in TV commercials, that was the end of adventurism for that type of music, and tunes would become increasingly generic. Perhaps the heady days of "The internet will change the music business forever! Viva la revolucion!" that lasted for about a year will go out with a whimper, not a bang, without ever having fulfilled much - if any - of its promise.

[staupephotmail.com]

Well...we may as well make this a 3 page thread.

 

Another look into the record industry and its noble attempts to help musicians to be all that they can be. The "Intent to sign" form is one to keep a look out for! I had forgotten about that one. My biggest complaint is that the Labels know full well how much these groups stand to make, but choose to use lies as a means to get contracts. My rant against musicians is "WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELVES"!!! The labels aren't here to creat art, they want to make money. The film industry is just as bad. Artists need to get some counciling before they make decisions of any sort!

 

It is another long read but well worth it!!

 

"The problem with music

by Steve Albini

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.

Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke. And he does of course.

A & R Scouts

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A & R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire." because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly.

These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave. Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well.

There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences.

The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it.

When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast.

By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on.

The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength.

These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years by a slick young "He's not like a label guy at all," A & R rep, on the basis of such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises [something he did with similar effect to another well-known band], and so the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A & R man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points, or possibly both, before he would consider it.

The new label was afraid the price would be too dear, and they said no thanks. On the cusp of making their signature album, an excellent band, humiliated, broke up from the stress and the many months of inactivity.

There's This Band

There's this band. They're pretty ordinary, but they're also pretty good, so they've attracted some attention. They're signed to a moderate-sized "independent" label owned by a distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label.

They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so they can have some security you know, get some good equipment, tour in a proper tour bus -- nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work.

To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well spent. Anyways, it doesn't cost them anything if it doesn't work. 15% of nothing isn't much!

One day an A & R scout calls them, says he's 'been following them for a while now, and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just "clicked." Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time.

They meet the guy, and y'know what -- he's not what they expected from a label guy. He's young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible with the right attitude. They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot.

The A & R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he wants 100 g's and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy who used to be in David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe-- cost you 5 or 7 grand] and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot to think about.

Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he'll work it out with the label himself. Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children-- without having to sell a single additional record. It'll be something modest. The new label doesn't mind, so long as it's recoupable out of royalties.

Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer--one who says he's experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be great royalty: 13% [less a 1O% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever.

The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years, with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of money in any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000. Just think about it, a quarter million, just for being in a rock band!

Their manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that contract over too. Hell, it's free money.

Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That's enough to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody In the band and crew, they're actually about the same cost. Some bands like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab) use buses on their tours even when they're getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night. It'll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.

The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There s a gold mine here! The lawyer Should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe.

They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo.

They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm."

All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies!

Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are:

These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. income is underlined, expenses are not.

Advance: $ 250,000

^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Manager's cut: $ 37,500

Legal fees: $ 10,000

 

 

Recording Budget: $ 150,000

Producer s advance: $ 50,000

Studio fee: $ 52,500

Drum. Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000

Recording tape: $ 8,000

Equipment rental: $ 5,000

Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000

Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000

Catering: $ 3,000

Mastering: $ 10,000

Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping

tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000

 

 

Video budget: $ 30,000

Cameras: $ 8,000

Crew: $ 5,000

Processing and transfers: $ 3,000

Off-line: $ 2,000

On-line editing: $ 3,000

Catering: $ 1,000

Stage and construction: $ 3,000

Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000

Director's fee: $ 3,000

 

 

Album Artwork: $ 5,000

Promotional photo shoot and

duplication: $ 2,000

Band fund: $ 15,000

New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000

New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000

New fancy professional guitar amp

rigs [2]: $ 4,000

New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000

New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000

Rehearsal space rental: $ 500

 

 

Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500

 

 

Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875

Bus: $ 25,000

Crew [3]: $ 7,500

Food and per diems: $ 7,875

Fuel: $ 3,000

Consumable supplies: $ 3,500

Wardrobe: $ 1,000

Promotion: $ 3,000

 

 

Tour gross income: $ 50,000

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

Agent's cut: $ 7,500

Manager's cut: $ 7,500

 

 

Merchandising advance: $ 20,000

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

Manager's cut: $ 3,000

Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000

 

 

Publishing advance: $ 20,000

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

Manager's cut: $ 3,000

Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000

 

Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 = $3,000,000

Gross retail revenue Royalty

[13% of 90% of retail]: $ 351,000

Less advance: $ 250,000

Producer's points

[3% less $50,000 advance]: $ 40,000

Promotional budget: $ 25,000

Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000

 

Net royalty: $ -14,000

^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^

 

 

Record company income:

 

Record wholesale price

$6.50 x 250,000 = $1,625,000 gross income

Artist Royalties: $ 351,000

Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000

Manufacturing, packaging and

distribution @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000

Gross profit: $ 7l0,000

 

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player

got paid at the end of the game.

 

Record company: $ 710,000

Producer: $ 90,000

Manager: $ 51,000

Studio: $ 52,500

Previous label: $ 50,000

Agent: $ 7,500

Lawyer: $ 12,000

Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25

 

The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.

The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige.

The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys."

 

You still want fame? If so I think you need a shrink!!

 

Good Luck

Eric

[Anderton]

Thanks Eric, what a coincidence...someone who had been reading the thread said to me, "hey, have you seen Steve Albini's rant?" I confessed I hadn't, but I signed on to forum today, and there it was.

 

Hey - should we try to track down Steve Albini and see if he can do a forum here on the site?!?

[Anderton]

Just when I thought there was nothing more to say about all this, USA Today printed a survey on people who download digital music. I can give the full results in a later post, but what interested me was that 60% downloaded music because they wanted to preview a CD. 21% downloaded music because they thought CDs were too expensive.

 

So, if this survey is truly representative, then both sides are right: downloading music stimulates sales, and also reduces sales.

 

Now the question becomes is the end result negative or positive? Based on these figures, it seems that ultimately, more money would be made because of downloading music than would be lost.

[alphajerk]

well duh. i like napster and the free DL's with mp3 on the internet. mp3 sucks just enough to sound really good on crappy computer speakers yet not good enough to do damage to cd sales. try playing an mp3 in a nice boomin car system, its just not the same. or on your stereo. there is something definately missing.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Anderton:

 

Hey - should we try to track down Steve Albini and see if he can do a forum here on the site?!?

[/b]

 

Yes.

 

While you're at it, why not talk Sir George Martin, Butch Vig, Pierre Marchand, Bob Ludwig and maybe Bob Clearmountain into doing columns?

 

ACTUALLY..

 

Why don't you create a forum that lists who you're going to have interviews with in the future, and let readers post questions to be asked of them here? It would really set EQ apart from other musician/music tech interview magazines....

[Anderton]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Why don't you create a forum that lists who you're going to have interviews with in the future, and let readers post questions to be asked of them here? It would really set EQ apart from other musician/music tech interview magazines....

 

 

 

That is really a great idea. I'll pass it along to Mitch at EQ. Thanks!

[Doug Robinson]

The questions of *who* is using Napster at the moment and even what they are using it for are almost irrelevant to me. I smell a trend, an American gestalt brewing that the wave of the future is going to be downloading tons of music to be shared by friends and strangers, without them paying for it. It is already happening in some cases, and I see no real barriers to it happening more and more as the technology becomes slicker, friendlier, and capable of reproducing higher quality audio, liner notes, and even value-added stuff like interviews, photos, etc.

 

Anyone who thinks that the low quality of MP3s is some kind of barrier isn't using his or her imagination. Does anyone here really believe that there won't be better-sounding sharable music files within, say, 12 months?

 

But the main point is is that even with current crappy MP3 technology, Napster has 20 million members right now. Many of them obviously think the quality is "good enough," wouldn't you say? Most people don't give a shit about things like that, truth be told--vinyl die hards think CDs sound like shit, but plenty of folks like 'em well enough. And did you know that cassette sales only fell behind CDs at retail for the first time in 1999?

 

I think we ain't seen nothing yet. Of course, CD burners can be used for nefarious purposes, but it's basically a one on one, real-time operation. The technology that is at issue here enables one person to supply arguably very good reproductions of music to millions of people without even breaking a sweat.

 

For those who take comfort in the fact that internet access is too slow right now to promote uploading of entire albums...well, people can easily download singles today, and they are doing it. It really is only a matter of time before they are able to do the same with albums. And they will. See what I am saying?

 

I think the whole concept of "internet connection" is going to change radically in the next couple of years--I know there are plenty of ambitious and bright people who are dedicating their brainpower and a few hundred million dollars of VC money to this challenge right now.

 

Please don't confuse this with me arguing on behalf of the traditional recording industry.

Most of them are behaving like the self-centered, corrupt fools we've always known they were. I think the technology in front of us is exciting, and will open channels for music distribution that we've never dreamed of. We just have to work a few things out first, like a consensus about what is right and what is wrong when it comes to artists' rights.

[alphajerk]

i dont care i john doe or susie q downloads my mp3 for free. for the most part i dont care if they copy the cd for a friend. i have done this many times already, im not selling it but it still is probably piracy. but what i copy cant be found in stores. same thing i do with napster, i search for things i cant find in stores. like i give a rats ass about metallikkka. too bad they all didnt die with clif burton. he was the real part of the band anyways. they gotta have enough money by now. napster isnt going to make them file for bankruptcy.

 

now i someone were to take my music, build a kiosk around it to sell their product, then i have somebody to go after. besides they have a lot more money a lot of times than john doe or susie q.

 

in the end, i dont really care since i make my own roads in life anyways so i could really give a rats ass what the industry thinks about napster. but to be fair, i think the CD's are a bust. everything out there can be copied. so i do believe we should have copy-protection built into encoding for the next format DVD? SACD? for those who want it. it will secure their music to a degree [until some hacker just cracks it anyways] and we will get the upgrade to sound quality that would be so nice [larger files to transfer over the net will deter mildly] and finally make all those vinyl lovin freaks to eat their dillusional words. [i think records tend to sound like shit and i hate having to get up to flip it over, not to mention skipping and the ever present firecrackle]

 

then you can have you cake and eat it too. everybody wins.

 

although i personally think the record labels dont like the technology because they have lost a huge foothold they once had on the market. and wanting to go back is futile. even large studios will pay the price due to technology.

 

just wait till the revolution hits hollywood and the filmmaking process. early signs are showing now.

[Chip McDonald]

I'd like to make one simple statement about this situation that apparently no one wants to face:

 

The genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back........

[Anderton]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

I'd like to make one simple statement about this situation that apparently no one wants to face:

 

The genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back........

 

...and record companies seem least willing to face this. $2 for a downloaded song?!? GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Say a CD has 12 songs. So people are going to spend $24 for something they can get in a store for $15 -- oops, $18? Or download for free?!? Meanwhile, the record company hasn't spent a dime on packaging, shipping, bribing, or anything other than server space. How stupid do they think we are?

 

For the record industry, the train has already pulled out of the station. They may never recover. What they should have done for those $2 is value-added material -- like a password to participate in a chat with the artist, or subscription to an email fanzine or something.

 

For a very interesting summary of this incredibly sorry state of affairs, check out http://www.latimes.com/business/updates/lat_music000717.htm.

 

Meanwhile, on the other side, the "Everything should be free" people are destroying the concept of intellectual property. This is a battle with no winners.

[Doug Robinson]

Not sure why you think we haven't faced the old "genie out of the bottle" thing--i know I have. That doesn't mean I can't keep an eye on the outcome and try to have some influence on it.

 

If what you're saying is that because you can easily get music for free now without the artist or the label paying for it, so why even bother crying about it...that may be ok for you. I'd prefer to keep talking about this issue on both technological and

ethical levels, as I think both are equally important in the end. Addressing one without the other is going to screw somebody real bad--either the artist or the consumer.

 

If that is the RIAA's best thinking...well, is anyone surprised? yes, they think we are incredibly stupid. maybe they are waiting for us all to throw up on their "plan" so they can go crying to the government that Napster is putting them out of business.

 

Alphajerk, you and I haven't seen eye to eye on anything I've read in these forums, and your last post was no exception. One little thing, the copy protection thing you think should be part of the next format? You yourself admit that it will be hacked and probably sooner rather than later. By and large, can you think of a better solution than getting people not to steal, just because they can?

[jpwcolumbus.rr.com]

Can we really say that things like the cassette recorder (and the resultant pirating of tapes) causes booms in the record industry? I mean, they did coincide, just like movies and the VCR. But on the other hand, our culture has been steadily moving towards a multimedia-entertainment-only culture. Making $1,000,000 on a movie today doesn't mean the same as it did 20 years ago. Nowadays, people pack the theatres for the crappiest movies, and go on a weekly basis just because it is the normal social activity of our times, much like the Parchesi boards & bridge clubs of yesteryear.

 

The same goes for records, too. Anything multimedia-entertainment-related, really.

 

I really don't see how pirating records & movies could actually create a boom in those industries. It would be like saying that car theft has created the current booms in the automotive industry. Sure, auto theft rates are higher than ever, and so are sales & car ownership, but can we honestly say that the thievery is what causes it?

 

Should we recoil in shock the next time we find out someone was carjacked at gunpoint in our neighborhood, or be relieved that this is helping the industry and giving us better selections of cars to choose from? It can get as illogical as that.

 

And I find it oddly ironic that, in our audiophile age, people'll spend thousands on an entertainment system, but won't shell out 15 clams for a CD.

 

It's that whole "free beer" mentality that really annoys me more than anything.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Doug Robinson:

If what you're saying is that because you can easily get music for free now without the artist or the label paying for it, so why even bother crying about it...that may

 

I didn't imply that. The industry has shot itself in the foot.

 

A) The technology is *NOT* totally ubiquitous. It basically requires a cable modem hookup to be practical at all; this alone reduces the number of people taking advantage of it. Then you have to count how many people don't have access to a CD burner, people who don't know how to do such a thing anyway, THEN people who still don't have a computer (or want to bother with the Internet - there's still Net phobic people out there). Then there were those who don't understand the concept of Napster at all and feel they can't deal with it...

 

Considering this,

 

B) The industry did itself an injustice by allowing the hype surrounding this issue to grow so big, thusly making the situation much worse. People see this in their local newspaper and think "hey.. maybe I should try to find this NApster program online afterall", people decide to sign up for a cable modem, people decide a CD burner might be worth the trouble after all, people think "hey... maybe it *is* time for me to get into computers!". And so forth.

 

Which leads to...

 

C) They kill Napster but there's still 20 different ways of doing the same thing, not to mention Usenet which has been around for years and years - except now people are more aware and more motivated.

 

This is what I mean by "you can't put the genie back in the bottle". The industry has not thought through the whole situation before it acted, not to mention it's own greed has caused it's actions (wanting to charge ridiculous amounts for ecommerce) to be counter productive to it's own purposes.

 

thing, the copy protection thing you think should be part of the next format? You yourself admit that it will be hacked and

 

Ultimately, short of instantaenous public key encription (perhaps in 5 years with molecular based computing), the digital medium will always be open source to hackers. This is another concept the industry doesn't understand.

[Anderton]

Talk about hypocrisy! This just in - some Napster fans were coming up with T-shirts to support Napster that had a logo of the Napster cat sort of morphed with a happy face. Guess whose lawyers came down hard, claiming trademark infringement?!??!

 

Yes, it seems the company that's devoted to "sharing" feels that way only when dealing with other people's work. As far as I'm concerned, Napster just blew any credibility they may have had...they're just another bunch of parasites, making bucks off of other's work, and looking out for #1.

[Guest]

Craig,

 

Fortunately, for me, I was never fooled. I think that more people should understand the difference between a legal defense and a company's level of morality/ethics. Despite all of the talk back and forth, I doubt very seriously that anyone REALLY believes that it's ok (ethically and morally) to allow access to someone else's work (without permission or payment).

 

Napster's arguments (and unfortunately those repeated by its followers) has always been that of a legal defense (albeit a shabby one). They have shown themselves to be a company who will try to get away with anything that they can, just like the "corporate machines" (the major labels) that they claim to be fighting. Craig, I hope that your example (and the one where Napster's attorneys stopped Napster supporters.... the band "The Offspring" from selling... um, I mean sharing Napster T-shirts) proves what this company is REALLY trying to do.... profit at the expense of someone else.

 

Ex

 

[This message has been edited by exmun@yahoo.com (edited 09-28-2000).]

[alphajerk]

napster sharing music is the equivilant to "sharing t-shirts made out of a 50/50 blend rather than pure cotton.

[Guest]

I saw that. Egads, you're right, what hypocrisy. It seems that, although one may start out with good intentions, as soon as the possibility of making lots of money comes into the picture, well...

 

In any case, Napster (the company) does not particularly matter. They could shut down tomorrow and it wouldn't matter. Napster (the technology, that is, peer-to-peer Internet file transfers) is here to stay, and that's what's important. Hypocrites or not, I don't want them to lose the lawsuit because it would set a bad precedent for the future (although I still think any attempt to legislate and enforce file sharing laws will be fruitless ulimately). Let them win the suit and then die anyway because of their own idiocy! LOL...

 

--Lee

[Uh Clem]

Originally posted by lflier@mindspring.com:

Egads, you're right, what hypocrisy.

 

Call me a cynic, but I think I saw that coming from day one. Anyone who sets up an operation that blatantly infringes on Copyright law with no regard for the Artists they are screwing doesnt need any more evidence to show them off as a bunch of fuckers.

 

I also think while the some of the focus on this thread has been on the low quality of MP3s, this is barely relevant.

 

Firstly, a well encoded MP3 sounds pretty darn good at 128kpbs. Many stereo systems probably cant resolve much of the quality difference.

 

Secondly, it wont be long before the bandwidth of the net makes this compression a non-issue and youll be able to stream the real goods with no problem. 24/96 may slow this down a bit, but ultimately it wont matter.

 

How about CD or media players with dongles? Just look at how the Software industry has been trying to deal with piracy for years and you can see where this thing is heading and also see plenty of evidence that the uninformed or the unscrupulous will steal outright if they can.

 

Education can help the honest people, for the others - barbed wire I guess - nothing really ever changes.

[Guest]

Originally posted by lflier@mindspring.com:

Napster (the technology, that is, peer-to-peer Internet file transfers) is here to stay, and that's what's important. Hypocrites or not, I don't want them to lose the lawsuit because it would set a bad precedent for the future

 

Lee,

What about the bad precedent that it would set for the protection of copyrights if Napster won. Basically, Napster winning would basically say that copyRIGHTS mean jack and that anyone can willfully take anyone else's intellectual property and trade it to potentially millions without punishment, control or at the very least paying a royalty...

 

Help me rationalize what you're saying. I'm assuming that you are a musician, that you do create original music and that you care about it (i.e. place a high value upon it). Because, if so and you still feel the way that you do, may I come over to your place and steal... I mean "share" some of your music? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Ex

[Guest]

Yes, I am a musician who creates original music. And yes, I think it can only help me if more people hear my music, even for free.

 

I am in the process of putting a web site together for the purpose of working together to define the new economy of the music biz and how that will work. I'll be sure to post the URL here when it's ready. Meanwhile, please scroll down to the thread "possible Napster solution?" on this forum and read my comments on this issue. Reply comments are welcome!

 

--Lee

[Guest]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

 

 

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

"Recently, Napster has undergone some changes at the top; the day before this interview, the company hired a new CEO and received a $15 million influx of capital"

Quote from Rolling Stone Magazine.

If napster isn't making any money, why the hell do they need a CEO, and where the hell did $15 million come from? I am getting old, and my eyes start burning when I read too much, and I don't want to go back and read your post again, but I don't remember you mentioning the songwriter once.

[Guest]

Originally posted by stevepow:

Call me a cynic, but I think I saw that coming from day one. Anyone who sets up an operation that blatantly infringes on Copyright law with no regard for the Artists they are screwing doesnt need any more evidence to show them off as a bunch of fuckers.

 

I don't think the 19-year-old who wrote the Napster software was really thinking (or deliberately not thinking) about the copyright issues. He was just interested in making the technology available, which is very good technology and has a multitude of perfectly legitimate uses.

 

Now the venture capitalists who funded Napster Inc. are another story, and I always did wonder exactly how they expected to make money. But I think those are separate issues.

 

And I don't agree that file swapping is "screwing artists", anyway. But I do think the technology needs to be treated as a separate issue from the corporate hijinks. I don't doubt that companies wanting to profit from music file swapping will come and go, and some will be more ethical than others, but the technology will be available and the only question is whether we (artists) will be willing to accept and take advantage of it, or try (unsuccessfully) to fight it and bitch and moan about how we are being ripped off.

 

--Lee

[lwilliam]

I had heard (not sure if it's true) that Napster had hired one of the Microsoft attorneys to help defend them.

 

If Napster would only cut a deal with the RIAA for, like, $0.50 a song download or something. Even MP3 pays it's artists for downloads.

 

NOT that I love the RIAA or anything...

 

BTW, I just heard that there is s software package available which tracks Napster and Gnutella songs and sends a "copyright violation" notice to the person advertising it. However, who knows how many e-mail addresses given to Napster are real.

 

 

 

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

Larry W.

[Uh Clem]

Originally posted by lflier@mindspring.com:

 

And I don't agree that file swapping is "screwing artists", anyway. --Lee

 

Wow, Lee for a software developer, it is difficult to understand your view. If lots of people swapped the program "files" you develop around, pretty soon you wouldn't be making much money.

 

The same goes for you music files you create - they are your intellectual property. Neither one is nearly as tangible as something like an automobile or a chair; neither of which would be swapped or shared in the way people treat music or software.

 

Sure it is not convenient, but what if it were and the chair maker makes a dozen, then everyone shares them worldwide. He's now out of business. So this model only works if everything is that way - house, clothes, and food - everything that this chair maker needs for his livelihood that he no longer can achieve by capitalizing on his skill must be "shared" as well.

 

Or why can I not get a key made that allows me to walk onto the Porsche lot and "share" one of their cars - suppose someone starts giving away keys that will let me do just that. Could it conceivably be OK?

 

I can't for the life of me understand a scenario where the ownership of the object should be based on how tangible it is. It is astonishing to me how many people seem to be rationalizing the outright theft of intellectual property.

 

Maybe you have something cool figured out that actually lets the Artist decide what is shared and what it paid for and I look forward to your posting or WEB site that can start a resolution to this.

 

And I'm not saying that this guy's software is cool or not - technology does not in itself do harm - it is how it is used.

 

How have I misunderstood this issue: that Artist have not agreed to having their product being given away?