Napster & the RIAA: Who's the REAL thief?

[Laurel]

I know what you're thinking - OH GOD not another Napster thread... but this news is important in understanding what is actually happening in the recording industry, and for seeing who the REAL thieves are :

* * * * *

Record companies sued for price-fixing

NEW YORK (AP) - Record companies should pay back millions of dollars
in illegal profits they collected by forcing discount stores to raise
CD prices in 1995, attorneys general for 28 states alleged in a
lawsuit Tuesday. "These illegal actions certainly have not been music
to the ears of the public," New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
said as the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
The music companies maintain that they threatened to stop supplying
discount chains with thousands of advertising dollars in the
mid-1990s because the chains were selling CDs at below wholesale
cost, driving some record stores out of business. They indicated
Tuesday that they would contest the lawsuit. The lawsuit comes three
months after the five major music distributors, while admitting no
wrongdoing, settled FTC charges they unfairly inflated CD prices. See
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2568764521-704

* * * * *

I have been and always will be in favor of Napster and other forms of because I believe that it signals the beginning of an era where ARTISTS will have the power, not the record industry. This suit clearly defines who the REAL thiefs are. They may shut down Napster, but the RIAA's monopoly on distribution is on the way out. I say good riddance. Many well-known artists are working together to create a venue much like what Stephen King has done - to distribute their music online themselves so that they, as the artist, have CONTROL over their work. And every day yet another takes Napster's side - Prince spoke out against corporate labels controlling his music and his career, and applauded Napster.

This is an important issue for all of us, especially you writers. What happens here with the music industry will affect all forms of entertainment - books, movies, all the way down the line. I'm wondering what you think of the recent events, and how you think this will affect you and your craft in the next ten, twenty, fifty years...

 

[KillerMuffin]

You are so right Laurel. I'm one of those wannabe writer critters. I doubt anyone would really be interested in my musings, but you never know, I seem to have already garnered a fan of sorts. (Hey, my hubberprecious counts!) The thing about this whole napster controversy is simply money, something that doesn't interest me much, my tastes are simple and don't require alot of it. I don't want to be rich, my relatives would never stop bothering me. But if I were to ever be a rich and famous writer and my stories were shared online, I hope I would be big enough not to bitch about the money because I never wrote a word for the money.

 

[Laurel]

I completely agree, KM... Anthony from the Red Hot Chili Peppers who said in the new Entertainment Weekly re:Napster...

"It's not for me to decide. That's between God and technology. As an artist, I'm way more concerned about making good art than the commerce of it."

And I think that's so spot-on - that's called having your priorities straight. To see these other artists get all up in arms because they think they're going to lose money (which, BTW, it's been proven in every major study done thus far that they're NOT - that MP3 trading online actually helps album sales in the same way that radio play helps album sales) makes me think they're not only clueless about the situation, but in the music biz for the wrong reasons.

Here's a couple other good quotes"

Duncan Sheik:"At the end of the day, all of these informational mediums (music, film, books) are going to be free. This injunction is a temporary stopgap. As artists, we're going to find different ways of creating revenue streams for ourselves."

Chuck D., Public Enemy:"The big record companies ran to the government like a bunch of pussies. Here's an industry that once prided itself on basking in the enthusiasm of its fans. Now that the fans have gotten ahold of the technology first, you're seeing its real colors...Stopping the process of file sharing is like trying to control the rain."

Mark McGrath, Sugar Ray:"God knows what's happening with the Internet or with Napster. We are going into uncharted territory right now. This could be the last conventional record we ever make."

Ben Folds, Ben Folds Five:"I can't believe Napster might be shut down. Music is for everybody. When people get excited about it, whether from hearing it on the radio, borrowing a record from a friend, or accessing it through Napster, they buy records and come to shows."

Ronnie Milsap:"Now the genie's out of the bottle. I don't know how to feel about it as a songwriter. But as a computer user I love it."

Courtney Love, Hole:"Stealing artists' music without paying for it is absolutely piracy — and I'm talking about major labels, not Napster...I'd rather have 100 million people hear my songs than 1 million. It's not about money."

Fred Durst, Limp Bizkit:"The Internet is here, and anybody trying to fight that, which would be people who are living by certain standards and practices of the record industry -- those are the only people who are scared and threatened."

from The Offspring's web page:"The Offspring view MP3 technology and programs such as Napster as being a vital and necessary means to promote music and foster better relationships with our fans. The Offspring are dedicated to understanding our fans and are committed to developing the best possible Internet presence that promotes The Offspring's music and helps us stay in touch with the people who provide us with our livelihood, our devoted fans."

Patti Smith:"Metallica suing Napster seems like such a square thing to do."

 

[Reignfyre]

I, too, side with Napster and everyone is right..it's all about money. To me, Napster, or anything like it, is no different than borrowing your friend's CD to record a song off of it. Most of the time, after listening to the rest of the album, you realize that it's good and go out and buy it yourself. If anything, the recording industry is making more money than they were before. CD buying trends, aside from the usual young teenage girl crazes over N'Sync, Britney Spears and the like, show this as well.
However, what really gets me is how a band like Metallica can sue Napster. Them, of all people, should know that a struggling artist would love to be heard by anyone. It wasn't but 20 years ago when barely a club full of people even cared about Metallica and they were forced to basically starve. How the time have changed. Seems to me that Metallica has forgetten their roots. For them to sue Napster is a slap in the face to every small musician out there just trying to be heard...again, it wasn't 20 years ago when Metallica, gods of a music genre, couldn't even give away their demo.

 

[Canucklehead922]

Okay, look, I just want to say something.

I'm an artist. I play bass, I write prose--and I do it for Art. I'm sure that something like Napster is good promotion (but still piracy) and that record labels take too much money (also piracy). I live for my Art, breathe it...but that doesn't mean I want to not get paid for it.

I can't understand why people would expect that an artist should give away their Art. I don't want to give away my Art; I want to sell it.

Think about all those gadgets you have at home. Every one of 'em has a patent on it, you can be sure. Should the inventors of these devices (microwave, coffee maker, etc.) have given away their creations? I think that most people you ask would say that an inventor who'd given away his creation would be a damn fool. Why, then, is it any different for Art?

Plumber, doctor, lawyer, anything you could think of is excluded from this kind of thinking. You don't dream of not paying your plumber for fixing your pipes, nor would you expect your doctor (who might also be fixing your pipes) to work for free . Why, then, do people have this attitude when it comes to Artists? Is it the starving artist sterotype? What? Please tell me.

Yes, it is about money. How could it not be? Our daily lives are pre-occupied with the generation thereof. But because someone is out to make money doesn't make them a bad person. Anymore than living without makes you a good person.

If people want to give their work away for free, that's great. Some bands out in the music industry want to give their work away for free; others don't. It's a matter of personal choice, and Napster violated this choice.

I sometimes read the work posted here when I can find the time. All the people here who've posted a story have done so because they chose to post it. This site doesn't look over my hard drive and snatch up any text document it finds. If I make a personal choice, I darn well expect people to adhere to it.

...I think I've just about run out of steam for now. So I'll leave off and let people start yelling at me. (Why is it that in half the posts I've presented I end up arguing with our Madam?)

 

[Laurel]

(Why is it that in half the posts I've presented I end up arguing with our Madam?)

Because you have a secret crush on me? <grins hopefully>

Face it, folks, online MP3 trading is here to stay. As brought up in every rag from the New York Times to the North County Times (my usually woefully unhip local paper - which had a FRONT COVER commentary on Napster the day the injunction was given), if they take Napster down, there's still Freenet, Gnutella, and a dozen other avenues. It's over - the RIAA lost. And good riddance.

This isn't about artists giving away their work. This is about artist empowerment, about the creation of a new avenue with which artists can can promote their work. Here's a question: why is it that the same artists that would kill to have their single on their local radio station (for a possible audience of hundreds of thousands) but get pissy when that same single is released to Napster?

Like I said, EVERY STUDY DONE has shown that Napster use actually promotes record buying, just as radio play does. We need to not buy into the doom-and-gloom BS that the record industry is trying to push on us - the whole "theft" issue is bogus. THEY'RE the losers in this battle, NOT the artists themselves. When the dust settles, the artists will be making MORE, not LESS money, and they'll have power over their careers and their work. How can that be a bad thing?

 

[Guest]

I was just wondering if any napster user has heard of
copyright laws.Like Lars {of metallica}said I have no
problem with napster as long as it the bands choice.
by the way the riaa is the bigger thief.

 

[Monaco]

WhooBoy... Here goes...

Laurel, gotta tell ya, I dig alot of your take on Napster. I've used it as a research device for my own songwriting by delving into influences I'd never heard of. Easy task - checking out the top charts in Sao Paulo and then punching in the keywords into Napster and voilà! I was hearing experimental bossa-nova!

The 'nuck' has a point, though. Recording artists are not getting the kind of copyright protection they deserve. I'm not talking about Metallica or any of the players you quoted. They've done well for themselves in the system, and I agree, won't lose a thing to Napster. But don't forget something major about airplay: It's not just about exposure, it's about revenue; everytime a song of mine is played in a public arena or on public airwaves, I get a cut. Granted, it's the fraction of a fraction, but multiply that, and you get a month's rent.

I feel there is an underestimation of Napster's reach. Right now, I'll agree with your figures, record sales might be up instead of down. But we're still in MP3-based, copper-wire-networked, PC-based, Napping. What happens when the Diamond Rio comes out with a portable player which fits in your watch, can upload 300 minutes of high-fidelity MP4 files over wireless jet-stream networks (speeds upwards of 5 gigs/second!) with better audio than what we now have on our best-produced CDs?

Right now, a CD is more practical and better sounding than most of what you'll get off of Napster. But five years down the road, let's not fool ourselves, creators of content are going to have serious problems earning a living (decent or otherwise) from their craft unless we find a way - any way - to get some cash flow from all these downloads. It doesn't have to be massive amounts - let's make it half a buck per song. But something has to go back to the artist for services rendered. It really is like plumbing. Why should my three months poured into one damned good song, which gives you shivers, smiles or laughter go unrewarded? The logic doesn't work. Read on, I'll explain:

The problem with Napster is it's digital; it doesn't lose quality in transfer, lasts forever, and is essentially like air: can fit anywhere - and so, as the digital networks evolve into DVD quality audio and bit rates so far unimagined (true surround-sound symphonics, for instance - where each instrument has it's own physical place in the listening booth; be it phones or otherwise) the entire chessboard will change looks. In that change is where control over what is created will slip out of the hands of not only major distributors, but more importantly, of the very people who create what is listened to.

Here's why: I can setup my own website and promote my piece all I want, if people can get DVD-quality audio for free in a format more practical than the actual DVDisc, I'm not going to earn a penny. And you gotta know that kind of technology is just around the corner. So now, I've got eight million people listening to my modern symphony, but not a nickel to show for it... What do you suggest I do? Ask for charity from my fans? They'll likely decide I live well enough already. But after having sacrificed twelve years of my life on KD rations and not a prayer of ever making it, to be told that, say, 15000$/year should be plenty and what-are-you-complaining-about-anyways is bullshit to my noze. Napster doesn't give the artist control - it doesn't give him squat. The DIGITAL MEDIUM can and WILL give the artist control, but that control won't mean a thing unless he (the artist) can control how much money he wants to try to hawk his goods for.

So here's the solution: It's a two-pronged approach.

First off, keep Napster and all other music-swapping programs running, but ONLY up to a certain fidelity. Nothing above, say, 128bit stereo MP3. That way, we can listen to everything out there for free - and in good sound (hence the "promotional" aspect you touted) and then, if we like, we can purchase the surround-sound, mind-blowing, high-fidelity, version from the artist's own website or whichever venue he/she chooses to distribute his original oeuvre. Hence, the second prong;

Secondly, figure out a way to encrypt MP4's (or another - better - compression system) with a code which will limit transfers to those who paid for the original download. Have the Napsters and other swappers out there obide by the rules just as radios now dish out cash for the songs they play, so that at some point, somewhere, a revenue can actually be generated from what's being listened to.

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

The bottom line, the way I see it, is that right now is a transitional period in which people still basically go with the reflexes of old (buying the physical THING, the actual CD for the booklet and a slightly better quality in playback) but still get to play with the new (get reasonably good audio for free via the 'net). Problem is, as the technology grows and the swappers are empowered by better devices to listen to their swapped goods, there won't BE the physical CD (or DVD) to purchase in stores. There won't even BE record stores.

Music is first and formost about the songs, not the booklet. If you allow for free, unregulated distribution of copyrighted material, no one - not Eminem, Compay Segundo, Bob Dylan or your local (broke and struggling) band - will make a penny five years from now from their recorded material. You might argue that their notoriety will earn them a living through shows - but what if they don't DO live shows? Some of the best music out there is done by session instrumentalists, reclusive composers and frail geniuses. We need to break the idea that music is what Ricky Martin makes it to be: glitter, song, dance and swing! His is only one of billions of versions of this artform.

Jazz artists, contemporary musicians, all forms of audio would perish. Then what? Will we all need to be sponsored by the Gap to earn a living? Hell no.

Don't blame artists for wanting to live off of their art. And as far as your quotes go: it's good PR to be the proponent of a free medium. But when you live in Malibu and have a $15 million tour (net profits) secured, it's easy to say: "We're only in it for the art". But when you have to hold three jobs, work your ass off promoting what little material you've actually had time developping, and wondering how the hell you're going to pay this month's rent, it's not as jolly a game.

And 99,9% of artists are of the latter kind. Not the former. Give THEM the power to SELL (i.e. earn money) their songs via internet, then we'll talk about Napster and giving the audience their candy. That's my take, and as you can tell, I'm in it pretty personally. Don't take offense, I just feel strongly for my livelyhood. I ain't a millionaire, see. Just a strugglin' artist.

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

It is a damned shame, though, that the only other people defending this point of mine are the big-assed profit-geared nothing-to-do-with-art dickheads from the Majors. Makes my job of convincing y'all a helluva lot harder.

Peace. Enjoy the silence.

M.

 

[Laurel]

I was just wondering if any napster user has heard of copyright laws.

No one's SELLING the band's music without giving them a cut. No one's claiming ownership of the music. All they're doing is listening to each other's CD's, only on a larger scale.

Monaco, you've made some good points. All I'd like to say, though, is that many of the concerns of the music industry are the same ones that were brought up when VCRs were introduced. The movie industry was aghast, saying the public would use it to illegally tape copyrights television shows & movies from TV (which they did). However, there IS a legitimate use for VCRs - to watch movies that you've properly purchased and/or rented. Should VCRs be removed because there's a certain section of the population who bootlegs movies from TV? Should the phone be banned because people use it to make collect calls?

It's illegal to bootleg copyrighted music - whether it be via Napster or copying your friend's tapes (which, BTW, Metallica has admitted to doing in more than one interview). So go after the bootleggers! If Metallica had sued the fans instead of Napster, I guarantee that would've brought MP3 trading to a standstill. The chances of 300,000 lawsuits going to trial is nill, but just the idea of being brought to court would be a major deterrent. By going after Napster, Metallica positioned themselves against technology, and are getting lambasted everywhere because of it. They made it look like Napster's the criminal, not the ones actually trading illegally.

My big problem with people like Metallica going after Napster is that they've never been on the Internet and thus have no clue about what Napster actually is or the issues involved. In Congress, Lars proposed a ban on all systems which allow the anonymous transfer of files - unaware that this would practically put the Internet at a standstill, as it'd affect FTP sites and necessary transfers as well as Napster.

The problem with Napster is it's digital; it doesn't lose quality in transfer, lasts forever, and is essentially like air

Not true...MP3s are actually of less quality than CD sound. That's why they're smaller - they're compressed. I don't notice the difference, but my audiophile friends tell me the highs and lows are compressed and muddy.

As far as encryption goes, you have to realize that it's the "kids" who've written programs like Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet that are trading the MP3s. They'll break through that encryption like it was shrink wrap on a CD.

I don't know what will happen, honestly, but I will tell you that the artists are not in danger of losing money here. And realistically, I don't think that recording labels are going to be obsolete (though it'd be nice if I were wrong ) because there are enough artists that DO care more about their art than they do about money and don't want to be bothered with distribution and publicity - be it of CDs or MP3s. One thing's for sure: Napster will go down in history as the beginning of a new way of sharing data, and Metallica will be a sad footnote.

 

[Guest]

metallica a sad footnote I think you are a little jealous
because they make $35 million a year and you don`t.As for getting lambasted of the top 10 grossing concerts this year metallica has 9 of them so I don`t think it has affected them to much.And what is wrong with getting artists permission before napster and others use them,someone please tell me.Reading some of the views of napster defenders here and other places makes me think none of you have an iq above 10.And metallica will be around for a long time to come.Have a nice day.

 

[Laurel]

metallica a sad footnote I think you are a little jealous
because they make $35 million a year and you don`t.

Uh, yeah. You're right. What an unbelievably fact-based, informed, and might I add well-punctuated assessment of the facts. You definitely maintain that unregistered user standard. Good for you.

I'd suggest you go back and actually READ the responses on this thread. All of your questions were answered.

 

[Bliss]

LOLOL! Oh shit! Oh dear! Now, do you see why I like "retirement"??? Not that you're allowed to retire - if you did I think I would bite you. I trust that you have your waders on!

I think I need a drink...

There's a song in my head, goes something like this, wanna hear it, here it goes. Here's your sign, here's your sign, here's your freakinnnnnnn signnnnnnnnnnn!

 

[Guest]

Well I see you are no different then the rest of there defenders.

 

[Guest]

Laurel, 1811 posts.impressive.Do you have a life.

 

[Laurel]

Literotica IS my life.

 

[Laurel]

Payne - get ready to bite me! And save me a seat in retirement-land.

 

[RonG]

I suspect the future will end up looking just like the past from an art distribution standpoint. Thomas Wolfe did the best job of describing the two things that are required to allow any form of art or fashion to succeed - one idea and the means to market it. I suspect that Napster and the others will just swap one set of marketers for another before all is said and done and the economics sort themselves out.

It is fun to hear all the talk about paradigm shifts and artist to audience links. Yep, R&B artists driving across the country playing dives and selling 45s from their van were direct to audience, too but it didn't take off until the marketing guys made it happen.

The best thing about Napster and others is that we can legitimately get capitalism juiced in this industry and the overall value/price thing will get better for the consumer. But don't bet on eliminating middlemen, it hasn't happened anywhere else and it won't happen here.

 

[Bliss]

Payne - get ready to bite me! And save me a seat in retirement-land.

Caaaaaaaaarunch, Chooooooooooooooooooocolate.

When Cali falls into the deep blue sea, we can move to Florida, shoe shop, play nude shuffleboard, and redecorate peoples yards with Blue Flamingos. Pass me another beer.

And who left the barn door open? Moooooooo!

 

[Monaco]

No one's SELLING the band's music without giving them a cut. No one's claiming ownership of the music. All they're doing is listening to each other's CD's, only on a larger scale.

Ok, but then, if nobody's selling the music, what'll be generating money after we've moved beyond the discs and into strickly digital? It's where the technology's going. Then what?

Monaco, you've made some good points.

Laurel, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, and I completely disagree with that statement. But... thanks. You too.

...many of the concerns of the music industry are the same ones that were brought up when VCRs were introduced.

One difference. VCRs, cassettes, etc, were all a flawed medium. Quality was not as good as the originals, and they quickly faded. Digital is going to be just as good in your PC as in your average Megaplex in less than two years. That's the big difference here. Different technology. Different threat. This time, it's the real-deal.

By going after Napster, Metallica positioned themselves against technology (...) In Congress, Lars proposed a ban on all systems which allow the anonymous transfer of files.

Couldn't agree more. That's just plain retarded. Reminds me of the 1950's hunt for commies in Hollywood. A joke. A very damaging and sick joke. I hope he fails and is universally ridiculed.

MP3s are actually of less quality than CD sound. That's why they're smaller - they're compressed. I don't notice the difference, but my audiophile friends tell me the highs and lows are compressed and muddy.

Which is why I mentioned MP4's and the transfer rates that, in less than five years will have digitally transferable music sounding BETTER than any CD produced today.

They'll break through that encryption like it was shrink wrap on a CD.

Nope. Encryption is not the same game as hacking a website. In some cases, the codes are so complex, it would take a G4 running a cracking program full belt a good ten years to figure out the key. I'm talking big-boys crypting here. Not anything you'll find on the market.

As for Napster being a new chapter being written in music history, I agree again. But I also think it's in every artist's best interest to stay on top of what's going on. Anarchy is a bad playground for anyone hoping to live from art.

 

[Laurel]

Laurel, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, and I completely disagree with that statement. But... thanks. You too.

LMAO! Well, I'm glad - I'd hate to think we agreed on anything... That'd be boring!

 

[KillerMuffin]

They'll break through that encryption like it was shrink wrap on a CD.

Nope. Encryption is not the same game as hacking a website. In some cases, the codes are so complex, it would take a G4 running a cracking program full belt a good ten years to figure out the key. I'm talking big-boys crypting here. Not anything you'll find on the market.

Monaco my sweet, in this particular instance you are rather dead wrong. NO encryption is foolproof. Just ask Yahoo or the FBI or geez, how many highly encrypted servers got hacked lately? Who do you think the military uses to hack encryption codes by the way? Where do you think they get them from? It's not specialized military training. Where do you think the military gets it's decoders? Coders? Linguists? Analysts? Intel? From the same hackers who decrypt these things.

If not, ask the military. There is a reason they're are constantly changing the codes. Because encryption is too easy to break.

Just take the story of the USS Pueblo. Did you know that because of this particular ship and the clusterfuck surrounding it, the Russians understood everything the navy encrypted from it's capture in 69 to about 85? OOoooh, bad squid baaaaaad little squid, not sposed to reveal that lil secret.

You are correct though, in some of your arguments. As it stands Napster isn't much of a threat to the recording industry. However, in the future with the rise in usage of quality digital sound and mpx portable playing devices, there is a threat lurking. However, I don't believe the current action is the apropriate one.

Personally, I would not mind paying a small fee for the use of a Napster like network. A SMALL fee. Miniscule actually. But not in the current working conditions Napster uses.

As for Metallica... I feel vastly betrayed. For years I've held out that they were not sell outs, that it was for the music, not just the money. They are rich enough to have taken a different avenue to stop file trading. Instead they sued Napster because they were losing money. They grossed 35 million dollars someone pointed out, and that is not enough for them. It's not the Napster thing. Its the fact that they sold out. It's not the music anymore. It's the money. And it shows. Load and Reload weren't worth purchasing. 15.99 for two songs is straight stealing.


[Edited by KillerMuffin on 08-11-2000 at 11:39 PM]

 

[KillerMuffin]

Oh dear...

I just re-read what I just wrote and I'm blithering again. That made absolutely no sense to me at all. Somebody spank me.

 

[Laurel]

It made sense to me, but WTF do I know? Me being without a life and all...

But I'll spank you anyway.

 

[Guest]

Why is metallica going after napster because 10 years from now they will still sellout every stadium in the world and napster will be obsolete.When it is all over free downloads and metallica will both survive.So why all the arguing.To killer muffin who said load and reload were sealing wait for there next album witch witch will be going back to there
roots.

 

[KillerMuffin]

\To killer muffin who said load and reload were sealing wait for there next album witch witch will be going back to there
roots.

ummmm.... huh?