Napster, the Internet, and Stephen King

[Laurel]

I just read this article in Wired, and feel that all who make a living through the sale of their creativity (or want to someday) - writers, band members, artists of all stripes - should read this:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,36915,00.html

The gist: though Stephen King supports Metallica's efforts to protect their copyrights, he (like many others, including myself) feels that "the current technology is rapidly turning the whole idea of copyright into a risky proposition -- not quite a joke, but something close to it."

Things are changing, and faster than we think. Ideas like copyright and ownership are not going to have the same meaning ten, maybe twenty years from now.

In an open letter to his fans, King toys with the idea of serializing a new novel and asking them to pay $1 per chapter as they are released. This idea sprung from the success of his e-book novella Riding the Bullet.

From the article:

King appears to be picking up the torch raised last November by Jason Epstein of Random House. Epstein suggested that as e-books and print-on-demand books gained acceptance, authors would become their own publishers, cut out the middle-men -- the bookstores and the publishers themselves -- and sell books from their own websites.

...

"The future of publishing, indeed its salvation, is on the Internet," said Epstein, who predicted authors who would not need or want publishers, would handle their own marketing or outsource it, and would communicate directly with their readers.

Many "middleman" industries have suffered from the new e-commerce - travel agents, stock brokers, etc. Does this new way of doing business signal the end for recording labels, book publishers, possibly even movie studios?

So my question to you fine folks - artists and appreciators of art alike... after reading the article, do you think that the new Internet economy:

1) Is ultimately destructive to artists, because it endangers copyrights and cheapens creativity;

or

2) Is ultimately beneficial to the artist because it gives him/her total control over their work.

???

[This message has been edited by Laurel (edited 06-11-2000).]

 

[Whispersecret]

I'm not sure if I'm addressing your questions, Laurel, but here is my take.

In regard to middlemen, I rely on them to do jobs that I can't (or don't want) to do. I would never invest online, because I don't know enough about it. I still use an experienced travel agent to book complicated trips/vacations, especially to places I've never been. And I still shop for books in the store. (Mainly because I can skim a couple of pages and get a feel for the writing.)

The article mentioned something like only 5% of 38 million creative writers were published in print. No shit. I'm COUNTING on middleman publishers to weed out the crap. If you go by the law of averages, out of all the "writers" in America there is going to be a damn small percentage of people who have written something that I'm going to feel was worth my money when I read it. I will rue the day when bookstores become extinct, because it will mean I'll have to slog through gargantuan piles of e-garbage to find the real Books. (But if that happened, I'd expect some sort of referral service to pop up (sort of like Roger Simian's recommendation threads) to help me find the gems.)

I've browsed e-book sites. Usually you can read an excerpt. Once I found an excerpt that sounded promising and was well-written. Only once. Generally, I found the writing to be poor quality for one reason or another. That is not to say the print publishers have perfect taste. Far from it. There is plenty of stuff published that I wouldn't like. But if every Tom, Dick, and Harry e-publish their Great American Novel, you can BET that the amount of crap will grow exponentially.

Now, Stephen King is different. I don't think you can reasonably analyze this issue using him as an example. He could write an insect cookbook and people would buy it.

As far as writers doing their own marketing and communicating directly to me? YUCK. I already get enough unsolicited junk mail on my computer and in my mailbox every single week. I don't want more.

Is this destructive to my creativity as an artist because the middlemen exert influence on my end product? Because I've not been published by a publisher who edits, I can't say. If a publisher told me he would only publish my book if my heroine had blue eyes instead of green, I'd change it in a heartbeat. It depends on the degree to which they want to change my work. I'll have to get back to you on this one, Laurel.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Things have been a changing for some time now. Copying of music has been going on since the first two musicians. The fact that you could copy on to magnetic tape has not slowed the music industry down nor has copy machines done away with book publishers. New technologies just require adaption by the industry. The middleman provides exposure and marketing which will always be in demand.

The internet is like walking into the largest store you can imagine without there being any store clerks to help you. With experience you can find the listings of where to look for products but seldom can you find a list of all the exact products you are looking for.

Napster is providing just such a service for those looking for music clips.

I expect that as a reasonable plan to police the net for bootleg clips comes up there will be a decline in their availability. I think that it is more of a phase and I doubt that it has hurt the industry near as much as they seem to think. The music buffs I know of will still pay the bucks for "The real thing" with all its pretty packaging.

Reading a book on the net? I doubt that it would be near as much fun to drag my computer or even a loose leaf printout to bed and read myself to sleep. King's idea of releasing a book in instalments is an old one. Some types of books or stories will fit the medium very well while others just can not be brokenup into small sellable chunks.

Whisper I hate to say this but those middlemen don't do a very good job now of screening out the trash. The bookstore or library now have so many titles that I usually just choose a book by its cover, title, or the fact that I liked other books by that author. For new authors I often rely on bestseller listings and reviews. Movies we see when they come out on home video or on tv so we usually know what to expect from them. Music is one of the only areas that we spend the money to get new releases on cd. Teenagers what do you expect.

The net and associated technoligies will in the end benifit both the artists and the middlemen. There is just a period of change going on that can harm those not ready or not willing to change.

 

[Guest]

Maybe attitudes'll change but I think at the moment people like to have a product - such as a book, CD, video, DVD or whatever - that they can hold in their hands, and stack up on their shelf.

I know when I buy a CD, it's not just the music I want - I like having the cover art-work and a booklet I can read through coming home on the bus. I want it to look and feel stylish.

My ex-girlfriend spent hundreds of pounds buying 3 or 4 series of 'Friends' on video even though she'd already taped them when they were on tv. People know they're being conned and that it's all a marketing scam when they shell out extra money for a 'Special Limited Edition Box Set Pulp Fiction video with free Foot Massage Kit' (she bought that one too) - but they get enjoyment from it anyway. The way a product's packaged seems to add something to "the quality".

If I had an MP3 player and access to Napster (see - I've found out who "he" is now, Laurel LOL), I'd download a bunch of stuff for free that I probably wouldn't bother buying otherwise. But I think I'd still want the CD if it was something I was really into. I've got hundreds of albums taped onto cassettes by friends but I always seem to end up playing my CDs instead. (It's not 'cause it's better quality - I've got a shit CD player.)

I'd much rather read a book in the bath than some printed out sheets of A4 paper.

I think you get enjoyment from the way something's packaged as well as from the music or film or writing itself.

Maybe we've just been conditioned to think like consumerists and that way of thinking'll die out over the next few generations. I don't know really.

I'm scared about how all this is going to affect the music industry. Are musicians going to stop forming bands if there seems to be no chance of making a living from it the old way, or are they just going to promote themselves and sell their music through the net - find new ways of getting income?

My band are signed to a label so small that they can't give us any money at all just now. We're claiming 'Jobseakers Allowance' benefits in the meantime, and hoping that our album sells enough when it comes out so we can start making some kind of a living.

If things change as quickly as some people are saying our label's going to really struggle to survive and we're going to be a bit fucked. Hopefully they're thinking of new ways to work if the music industry does go that way.

Who knows, really? We'll just need to wait 'n' see how things develop.

rog

 

[Whispersecret]

Whisper I hate to say this but those middlemen don't do a very good job now of screening out the trash.

But you haven't seen the piles of stuff they reject...

 

[Laurel]

Yes, but they don't necessarily reject manuscripts because they aren't GOOD - they reject them because they think they won't SELL. I have a friend who's in the print publishing biz, and she's turned down many quality projects because they aren't what's "in" right now. If it's a biography, but self-help books are what's topping the charts right now, it will be ignored, no matter how good it is.

That's the problem - people honestly believe that what's at the bookstore or on the radio is "better" than unsigned talent. Look at the NYT Bestseller list and tell me that everything in the Top 10 is pure genius. Many of the greatest books in the world were shopped around for YEARS before someone finally took a chance on it.

So the idea that self-publishing is going to bring a flood of crap into the market is absurd. Think about it - Britney Spears and N'Sync top the nusic charts. According to your logic, they must be geniuses - they've outsold everyone else, right? Is "Chicken Soup For the Soul" the ultimate in literature? Is "Tuesdays with Morrie" better than David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest"? It must be - it sold more... ha

Publishing houses are profit-driven. They are not charitable organizations looking to find "the best in literature". And many quality writers get left out in the cold because of this.

 

[Whispersecret]

Yes, yes, yes, Laurel! Damn! That is Agreeing Incident #3. Methinks the world is doomed.

I agree with everything you said. Hadn't thought about that aspect, even though I completely agree. Publishing is driven by profit, which is why with my mainstream novel, I'm aiming to please and to sell. (Sort of whorish, eh?) I didn't mean to equate successful sales with quality. I definitely do not think so. "Message in a Bottle" sucked, but was a hit book and movie. And "Chicken Shit for the _______ Soul?" Pu-lease. Maybe the new Literotica book should be "Chicken Soup for the Erotic Soul".

On all of your very valid points, I stand corrected. I hadn't considered the things you pointed out.

[This message has been edited by whispersecret (edited 06-12-2000).]

 

[Bodizefi]

You hit the nail on the head Laurel. Most of the popular anything is fodder for the masses and big money for the corporations. I listen to underground music and read books by the counter culture publishers because that is where the real art for those who appreciates it lies.

 

[Laurel]

Yes, yes, yes, Laurel! Damn! That is Agreeing Incident #3. Methinks the world is doomed.

WTF? We're agreeing again? That's it - you're fired.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Ah rog... where could we find an mp3 or something of your stuff so I can see whether it is worth me buying your stuff. Yes a sale!

I have to say I want the packaging of the stuff(books/CDs) unlike a blind friend of mine who has pillaged my cd collection. He has 5 originals and 200 copies...
I have stuff on tape and if I think it is good enough when I have money I'll buy it.

Da chef

 

[Guest]

Chefster - the label mentioned one time that you can download our first single free but I've never worked out how to do it. It doesn't seem to mention any of this on their site.

Visit: http://www.shiftydisco.co.uk and look for references to Pluto Monkey. The single 'Jet Stream' was released in February as part of their singles club (they put out one a month).

I'll try to find out more about the free download the next time I talk to them.

Laurel - I agree that mainstream publishing is no guarantee of quality. And the fact that the big companies are so profit-driven often leads to real dross ending up on best sellers lists. Like Bodizefi says - a lot of the excellent innovative writing is to be found in counter-culture, underground publishing. I love self-publishing and fanzines. They're crude and raw but they're full of excitement and all the wild, subversive, crazy writing that a mainstream publisher would reject or iron out.

But, you do need some kind of filtering system. That's why Literotica is so good - you know that every day you're going to be able to read at least one or two erotic stories that appeal to you, and you don't have to wade through a pile of crap to find them (that's YOUR job. LOL) But ANY filtering system is going to be utterly subjective no matter how big or small the company. The smaller publishers might not be driven by profit but they still publish a lot of stuff that I think is rubbish in amongst the stuff that I like.

Won't the same situation happen on the WWW? I'm really new to the net so I don't know a lot about it and I don't have an eye on any of the trends. (Hell, I didn't even know what Napster was until a couple of weeks ago.) I really don't know how things are going to develop. I'm just being the Devil's Advocate and throwing ideas into the debate to see what you think.

Do you think the big publishing companies will start to move their businesses onto the net, and if so are they going to be able to monopolise the market 'cause they've got more money to spend on promotion and marketing, etc? If that happened, then the same situation could arise all over again on the net. Or are those companies so out of touch with what's going on that they're just going to be left behind?

rog

 

[Weird Harold]

Roger asked:

Do you think the big publishing companies will start to move their businesses onto the net, and if so are they going to be able to monopolise the market 'cause they've got more money to spend on promotion and marketing, etc?

They already have started to use the net for marketing. One of the first things I did when I finally got internet access, was to search out the websites for Baen Books, Random House, Tor Books, et al. Some are more aggressive and polished than others, but you can order almost any book direct from the publisher.

Baen Books even posts the first few chapters online for free, and offers a 'club' that for a $10 fee will let you read an entire book before it's published.

[This message has been edited by Weird Harold (edited 06-13-2000).]

 

[Laurel]

A New Wrinkle in the Napster debate

Check this article out:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/is/20000721/bs/stats_speak_kindly_of_napster_1.html

To summarize: two studies done by unbiased sources have found that Napster doesn't cut into record sales and, in fact, is a catalyst for CD buying. Read the article and let me know what y'all think!

 

[Endlessly]

Gee, I just feel lucky being part of that 5%.

Side note. Did you know Browning's first book of poetry didn't sell one copy in the first few years? Not even his mother bought one.. And Thomas Hardy's greatest novel, Return of the Native, was serialized.

I don't know. I'm an English major and plan to go into writing professionally, and I've been published in two (hopefully three by October *crosses fingers*) anthologies thus far in my infant of a 'career.'

PurplePlanet, my poetry website, is by far my most successful poetic endeavour. It's NOWHERE as big or as popular as Literotica, but it does boast a small mailing list and E-mail service. I've been toying around for about a year now with the idea of offering a spoken-word CD for sale (Xander's been toying around with background music in case ), but I haven't done it yet. Why? Ego.

What if I offered a CD.. And no one bought it?

I mean, I'd feel like an idiot. Whenever I submit something for publication and it's accepted, even here at Literotica, it AMAZES me that someone thinks enough of something I've written to want to put it out for public consumption. It's something I can't understand, it's a blessing I try not to question.

I think self-publishing is going to diminish quickly, simply because amateur authors can't handle the ego-bruising. It's easy to tell yourself "Dammit, these people don't know taste, this would TOO sell" when you get a rejection letter from a publisher..

But you can't say that to the apathy of the consumer.

 

[Laurel]

What if I offered a CD.. And no one bought it?

I ran an indie record label from age 19 till last year and I'll tell you something, Endlessly - that's not some theoretical question. That happens A LOT. Being a small record label, I didn't have access to the same distribution channels that the majors have, nor the same amount of promotional opportunities (read: money) to get my band's stuff out there. I saw bands on labels larger than mine sell many more copies of their records - bands that were, by nearly everyone's appraisals, not near as talented as mine.

The frustration I experienced had a lot to do with me shutting down the label last year. I wasn't the only one - I watched all the other kids I knew with labels go broke or get bought out one after the other.

I wish the Napster technology and MP3's had been available back when I started my label. I would've been able to get the band's music out to a much wider audience. I've got half a clue when it comes to promotion, but could never accomplish what I wanted because print advertising, hiring a publicist, all the other ways to make your band grow - they cost massive amounts of money, which I never had.

I can think of a dozen ways off the top of my head, using techologies like MP3's and the pier-to-pier system of Gnutella and even Napster, to promote my bands and get them heard. For example, instead of pressing singles and sending them out to radio and magazines (which, between the pressing, printing of covers, and shipping the records off, would be a $5000 for 2000 singles), I could've ripped the song to MP3 and emailed it to music directors or zine reviewers.

There will always be a place for record labels and book publishers because there are many artists - like yourself - who'd rather have someone else handle the burden of distribution and promotion. However, as it stands now, you're either a big fish in the pond or you're doing it as a hobby. Small print publishers and small labels cannot compete because of the way the whole system is set up. The Internet offers the little guy a fighting chance.

So if you do your spoken word CD, Endlessly, you don't have to hope and pray a major label chooses you, and then hope & pray you don't get dropped because the trend cops decide that girl vocalists are pariah (and this stuff does happen - a few years ago, Caroline Records dropped nearly every punk/indie rock band on its roster so they could concentrate on electronica. You can go with the many mid-sized recording labels I think the new technologies will allow to exist, ones with enough power to get their artists the attention they deserve.

And big-name writers like Stephen King can take advantage of their popularity directly, without a middleman. This means that he isn't dependent on any particular publisher, and thus any publisher that wants to deal with him has to treat him fairly, has to make it worth his while.

This article proves what I've thought all along... the distribution of MP3's is going to feed music interest in the same way that radio play feeds music interest. No one is going to shell out $16 a CD for something they've never heard of. But once they've downloaded a few songs they really dig - be them from a friend, from a band's official site, wherever - they're not going to settle for MP3 quality. They're going to go out and buy the whole CD so they can have the artowrk & lyrics, so they can listen to it in their car, etc.

I've been posting really long posts lately. I think I'll stop this one here before it becomes a book.

 

[Endlessly]

I definitely concur that the technology of MP3 is doing amazing things for the music industry. I'll take the partnership I have with Xander, for example: when he finished composing and recording and mixing the first song we wrote together and sent me the CD, one of the first things I did was rip it and send it to some friends, just to make sure it wasn't my imagination that the song truly didn't suck.

But after that, well.. A friend of mine runs http://www.stardogradio.com/ , which is probably one of the ONLY internet radio stations that have DJs and scheduled shows. The music on there is ten times better than anything I hear on the usual radio around here, so I try not to miss a show-- the DJs are funny as hell, too. It's a small, high-quality operation with international exposure thanks to the 'Net, and right now I'm talking with the people there about getting them to play some of Xander's stuff. Royalties alone from which could put Xander in a very happy place.

The two books I've been published in thus far are anthologies printed up for MW Enterprises, a small publisher that Marlowe Peerse Weever started when his publisher went under. The critics have loved the books if not the poetry; it's generally been said in each review that, above anything else, the books had a need to be printed and were historically important to our culture. (They're chronicalling the renaissance of poetry among Generation X.)

Incredible stuff to hear about books you're in, eh.

First one came out two years ago. Has yet to turn a profit. Go figure.

 

[Canucklehead922]

About Napster...

Look, I have respect for your opinions, Laurel, but the problem with Napster is not an issue of distribution or quality (or quantity) or whatever. The problem with Napster is that it, without explicit permission from the artists involved, it comitting THEFT, pure and simple. As I understand it, Napster would allow a person to download music for free. This is theft. Lars Ulrich of Metallica, in his oration to the senate, said something to the effect of:
"...downloading music from Napster is like stealing a CD from a music store. The only difference is that instead of here something like 'now finished downloading,' you hear the phrase 'you're under arrest.'..."

(Lars' speech is transcribed at http://www.encycmet.com somewhere)
Lars does a good job of summing the issue.

Now look, I know the industry lets a lot of crap to be released (Britney's Pears, the Backdoor Boys, In'sect, etc...) and a lot of good musicians are ignored, but that doesn't mean we should approve of theft. MP3 may or may not damage record sales -- but as an artist myself, if I don't want my art traded for free then I would be, and I ams, completely opposed to this sort of business.

It's the TANSTAAFL principle -- "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

As to internet publishing, I don't have many facts about this at hand. However, there's something about reading a book, paperback, hardcover, whatever. Books have a smell that you don't get from print-outs.

(And talking about books, I'm eagerly awaiting the release of Faith of the Fallen by Terry Goodkind!)

 

[Laurel]

Hi Canucknucklehead!

A few notes on Lars "TANSTAAFL" Ulrich:

- In several interviews, James Hetfield nonchalantly discusses how he and Lars engaged in pirating music in their youth (i.e. copying each other's cassette tapes, which BTW is essentially what's happening on Napster).

- Also in multiple interviews, Lars and various band members credit their success to the circulation of bootlegged tapes of their concerts, and never once criticize this action despite the fact that this is essentially like what's happening on Napster. I guess it isn't stealing if it helps to make you big stars.

- As for Lars "oration" in Congress, he was the only person there who advocated a total ban on any software that permits anonymous transfer of files - which, to anyone familiar with the Internet, is a silly notion. Not even the RIAA supported that, and several congresspeople rebuked Lars for his remarks in that direction.

- Lars himself has admitted that before his lawyers pointed out Napster to him, he had never been on the Internet. Thus, IMHO, his opinions on the issue are irrelevant and uninformed.

If it were just a question of stealing music, then why is Lars suing Napster? As I've stated before, you don't prosecute the phone company because someone uses a phone to make a death threat. Napster is software - it's a tool. For Lars to sue Napster instead of going after the individuals who are actually stealing his music further shows that he doesn't have a clue as to what's going on. Had he not been Lars of Metallica, there's no way he would've been brought in to Congress to speak on the basis of his knowledge of the situation.

Also, your whole "TANSTAAFL" principle is flawed. Music is given away for free all day, every day, all over the world - via radio. And bands & labels do everything in their power to get radio play, because they realize that you cannot sell a record sight unseen (or unheard, in this case). Radio play sells records and makes careers - period, end of story. And according to the article I referenced a couple posts up, MP3 distribution has a similar effect on record sales.

Is Napster liable for theft that occurs on its network? Only time and lawsuits will tell. It's irrelevant at this point - MP3 sharing is here to stay. Instead of trying to shut Napster down - which will do nothing to stop MP3 trading, as Napster users are already moving over to Gnutella and other pier-to-pier systems. Artists and labels need to seek out ways to allow the sharing of MP3's AND compensate the artists, maybe a per-song royalty similar to what BMI charges radio stations for the publishing. The major labels have projects in the works to this end, which is why they've back off their hardline statements on Napster. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten to tell Lars.

As to internet publishing, I don't have many facts about this at hand. However, there's something about reading a book, paperback, hardcover, whatever. Books have a smell that you don't get from print-outs.

I dunno... I used to think like that, but nowadays I'm not so sure. When cars were invented, some people said that no one would ever own one because you can't have a personal relationship with a car the way you can with a horse. If e-books did become the standard, think of all the trees that would be saved. The printing industry is extremely wasteful in that regard.

As far as books go, William T. Vollmann's "The Royal Family" is out soon and I'm dying to read it.

 

[Blues]

Well, this whole subject is doing a terrific of job of promoting Metallica. I can honestly say that I would not go through the trouble and time involved to search through a website to download a few tracks. I MIGHT listen to samples of new groups that I haven't heard before or to check out a new offering by an old favorite before I auctually go out and buy the CD. Most of the stuff I have copied is just mixes of stuff that I've already bought and just re-recorded in order to get a litle variety, which I hardley do now that I have a 200 disc CD player with a random button.

Back in the '80's when I was active in the music bussiness the chance to get our music out to such a large audience where our stuff could be heard, or yes even copied, would have been a godsend. Anyone in a band trying to get a paying gig doing originals would know what I mean. It couldn't hurt and sure as hell might help quite a bit to a new band.

As for on-line publishing I can't imagine downloading and printing a book, but I might read an excerpt or two (I already do that in a bookstore by reading the dust jacket anyway), and if I like it I would be happy to buy a copy.

 

[Canucklehead922]

Hmm...great points, Laurel.

I get what you're saying, and I think I agree. However, you said that "...bands and labels...cannot sell a record sight unseen...." Mostly true, but it needs a bit of modification. There have been instances where bands made it big without help from radio, MTV or MuchMusic, or whatever, a recent example being KoRn. Metallica, too, I believe got big without great coverage by the media. Probably others, but I'm not aquainted with their stories. (Ironically, you need media exposure for people to know you don't need media exposure!) Granted, this is a more rare approach.

About the environment--yeah, not publishing books would help save trees. But so does recycling. Anyways, I couln't sit at my computer to read all day. I'd rather lounge around to read, and a person can't really do that with a computer. (Carying that 43 cm monitor around with you could be quite a drag. Pun intended.) Also, I read a lot, and if I read all my literature off the 'net I'm sure my eyeballs would explode from the strain.

By the way--I read about TANSTAAFL in a Robert A. Heinlein book (one of the greatest scribes to ever grace this planet) called "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress." I suppose I used the term in the wrong context in my post. Sorry.

I suppose that Lars is going too far on this issue. Hell, in a couple of years, the whole MP3 thing will be controlled by the music industry anyway, right?

I should probably shut up. I've already make a big enough fool of myself.

 

[Thumper]

One difference

My best friend and I have had this argument...He thinks Metallica is just being greedy...

There is a big difference in two people copying a tape or CD as in the "old" days and the Napster issue. Thusly....
When a person buys a CD and tapes a copy for his friend as Lars and James used to do that is one copy...not a big deal. Now it is possible to buy a CD and put the entire contents on the web for thousands to download. To me that is a huge difference if not in concept then in scope
Sorta like the difference between swiping a pack of gum from the corner drugstore and knocking over the local Chase Manhattan for a million or two...

Anyhoo...the record companies and artists will soon find a way to get in the game and exploit the web for monetary gain and all will be well in profitland. Never underestimate the capitalist mind or method.

 

[Laurel]

I should probably shut up. I've already make a big enough fool of myself.

Hell no! Thanks for speaking up - you made very good points, and I'm stoked to be debating with you...

On the Napster subject, here's an really good Salon article on how the music industry's "victory" in getting the injunction is actually the biggest mistake they ever made:

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/07/27/napster_shutdown/index.html

 

[Laurel]

Here's an interesting bit of the article:

"To understand this paradox, you'll need to
ponder with me the implications of a
front-page article in the Wall Street Journal
Wednesday. "When Its Own Assets Are
Involved," the headline declared, "Napster is
No Fan of Sharing." The story tried to tar
Napster as a hypocritical company -- for on
the one hand promoting the free-for-all
sharing of music files online but on the other
resorting to old-fashioned corporate bullying
when it comes to protecting its own
copyrights and software code.

The big problem with the Journal piece -- and with much of the
media coverage of the Napster saga -- is that it confuses
Napster the company with Napster the phenomenon.

You already know what Napster the phenomenon is: A
program that helps Net users find and download music files
from one another's computers. In the short months since its
debut last fall, Napster has become both a revolutionary
banner for anti-establishment music lovers and a lightning rod
for media-corporation paranoia over piracy and copyright
infringement.

Napster the company is something different, more prosaic: It's
a venture capital-backed Silicon Valley start-up with a lawyer
at its helm. It hopes, somehow, eventually, to make big money
from Napster the phenomenon. Those hopes look darker after
today's ruling.

Here's the problem for the record labels and their trade group,
the RIAA: Napster the company is an institution they could cut
a deal with if they so desired. It's a legal entity; it runs a
relatively small group of servers that can be shut down; it has
incentives to reach a compromise with the recording industry.

Napster the phenomenon is something else entirely. It's not a
corporation -- it's an idea. Napster Inc. could disappear off the
face of the Earth tomorrow and it wouldn't matter. Think of
what happened to Netscape; the company lost its fight but the
company's idea -- the Web browser -- took over the Net. The
idea of Napster -- of "peer to peer" software that lets individual
Internet users trade music files (and other files) with one
another -- lives in millions of minds. And the Internet itself gives
those minds ample opportunity to keep the idea going.

Already, projects like Gnutella and Freenet are beginning to
provide Napster-like functions with one key difference: There's
no central server, and thus no one to sue. Napigator lets users
find Napster servers that aren't run by Napster Inc. Over at
Opennap, open-source programmers are developing free,
Napster-like software for every computing platform under the
sun. On the open Net, a thousand new Napsters are blooming.

And what will be the impact of the court-ordered shutdown of
Napster? These projects -- small, underground efforts that
grew unnoticed in the shadow of Napster the company -- will
be flooded with energy. Users will flock to them, and talented
software hackers will work overtime to perfect them.

From the recording industry's point of view, it is slaying one
enemy only to seed the field with a thousand new opponents --
opponents who are, not incidentally, its own best customers.

...

For music lovers, the bad news today is that if and when
Napster shuts its servers down, we will have to find our music
through other channels. The good news is that the brain-dead,
colossally wasteful, artistically homogenizing old order of the
recording industry is committing collective, time-delayed
suicide in court.

Good riddance, I say. These institutions have never served
artists or listeners well. Once they're gone or rendered
irrelevant, maybe there'll be room for a new, better order."

 

[Endlessly]

A site I ran across..

http://mp3s.gq.nu/boycott.html

 

[Bliss]

I'm curious to know if anyone here has gone to Stephen's site, downloaded the first installment of the new story and paid $1 (or not paid, he offers the first installment on "your honor" that if you like it you can come back and pay).

I'd say that's taking a pretty big leap of faith. So far, the newswires have reported slow sales, with no one offering up how many unpaid downloads have taken place.

Anyhow, if you haven't seen any of this firsthand and you want to, it's all there for your consumption. http://www.stephenking.com/download.html

I wonder if when it's all said and done, will he make another few mil while thumbing his nose at "Big Publishing" or just become part of the machinery again.