Napster's Downfall....

Great Debates
1

I am sure that all of us Dopers have used Napster at one time or another, and if you haven’t, then you are missing out on a lot. I am also sure that all of us know about the current legal situation with Napster. They have been under fire for over a year now, and they are doing well with the battle when you compare them to other peer-to-peer file sharing systems. I am very worried about the outcome of all this though.

I have mixed feelings about what Napster’s fate should be, and I am not sure if I can pinpoint my view or not. I do love Napster in every aspect because of the free mucsic portion. I think they are more in the right than in the wrong, and that is what troubles me most. Napster is a very effective tool for unsigned artists to get their sound out there. On the other hand, it is a way for signed artists to get their music out there. To me it seems that most people using Napster only download the songs they want, and if they like those songs, they buy the CD. Of course, there are exceptions to this like every statement in this arguement. I am not sure why the record company is complaining about this as much as they are because
[list=A]
[li]Record sales are up all over the conutry[/li][li]Napster has offered several fair settlements, some that would benefit the record companies[/li][li]Napster actually, despite popular belief, has nothing to do with the swapping of the copywrited tracks, the end-users do[/list=A][/li]
But, as much as I love Napster and Music, I hate the RIAA an equal amount. I just hope that if or when Napster falls, most of the 60 million users find out about the smaller services that are very similar to Napster, so that the sharing can continue and the RIAA will eventually give up…

2

What part of the concept of copyright infringement do you endorse?
You are NOT, contrary to popular belief, buying a physical thing when you buy a CD or tape. You are buying a copy of a performance. You are also buying a license to use that copy for yourself. You are NOT buying a license to make copies of that performance available to others. After all, musicians don’t make the performance just because they like to play music; they also like to make money.
To analogize in the case of Napster: suppose Napster ran a house where people could take their illegal drugs and share them with a bunch of friends by making copies of them using equipment developed and promoted by Napster. Do you think that would be a morally correct thing to do?

There is a pervasive feeling in the computer world that somehow the laws of society developed to govern non-computer matters shouldn’t apply to the world of computers and their technological brethren. This concept, fortunately, finds no grounding in law or common sense.
Napster spent its life thumbing its nose at the law. Now, it has been called to heel. So will any other efforts to break the law. You want to know what a song sounds like before you buy the CD? There are plenty of places that offer samples on the internet without breaking copyright law. Use them.

3

So downloading music from Napster is equivalent to sharing dirty needles? Oh, please…

Musicians and record company execs worldwide should be thankful that they live in this century. Before Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, there WAS no recording industry! The only way to make money was through live performance, and for 99% of musicians that meant playing in a park somewhere with their hat held out for people to put money in out of the goodness of their heart. (Sort of like how like street corner musicians make money today.) No middleman was involved, unless you were lucky or famous enough to get booked in a large music hall, like Tchaikovsky or Mozart.

The ability to record music on a permanent medium changed all that. Suddenly, you had music in a format that you could listen to on demand, and for the newly-created record company, it meant you could MAKE MORE MONEY by selling this format instead of having to drag your artist out to play a live gig. The #1 driving force behind making music became GREED and the record company did whatever possible to maximize its profits, to the point of colluding to artificially fix CD prices at an insanely high price. (It costs LESS to produce a CD than it ever did to produce a vinyl LP or cassette.)

Every time something comes along that threatens to break the record companies’ monopoly, they scream bloody murder. First it was radio. Then cassettes, then used CDs. Guess what, NONE of these things drove the music industry into bankruptcy. Nor will mp3-trading.

Mp3-trading, through Napster or other sources, helps disseminate music to a wider audience. Sure, there will be some people who will download the music instead of paying money for it. But there will be other people who will hear the music and decide, “Hmm, I think I’ll buy this!” whereas without mp3-trading, they wouldn’t have heard it, and wouldn’t have spent money on it.

All this hand-wringing about copyright law is basically useless. Mp3-trading isn’t going away, and driving companies like Napster out of business will only drive it underground, with newer technologies like Gnutella and FreeNet replacing it, technologies which don’t operate on a central server and are virtually lawsuit-proof. So the RIAA may think they have won the battle with Napster, but essentially they are losing the war. Not that it matters, as they will continue to thrive and profit in the long run.

J.E.T.

4

What are you talking about? That has got to be the wrost analogy I have ever heard, because file sharing on Napster is absolutely nothing like sharing needles. This concept, fortunately, finds no grounding in law or common sense. Metallica losing 1000 CD sales are not going to kill them, as heroin will. As a matter of fact, I think it will help them.

If these bands learn to produce full length CDs that are worth listening to start-to-finish, then Napster would be pretty useless. But people don’t want to but a CD for 1, 2 or even 3 songs. I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but, many, MANY teenages and even older people listen to the radio, right? Well, when a song plays that they like, a lot of the listeners are pressing the Record button on their stereos. Is this not the same thing? Are these Radio Stations not “promoting bootlegging”? Your arguement may be “Well, an mp3 is much better quality than a Radio Song”, but there again, not really. I am not sure if people like you have ever listened to an mp3 before, but the quality is not great. It can actually be kinda tough to find a CD qualtiy mp3 on Napster of any given song. It would be kinda like taking a video camera inside a movie theater to watch it over and over instead of buying the video…people don’t want to do that. People want good quality music, and personally, I like to have the jewel case and art books.

To wrap this all up, I think the narrow-minded people like yourself (no offense meant there) need to open up a little. Sure, when you buy a CD you ARE buying the performance, I agree. But, you are also not leasing the performance. That i why you are free to do whatever you like with that performance once it is in your hands. So, even after all is said and done, you people will not shut down mp3s and the new industry they have created.

5

(I write) I have always felt that Napster was completely indefensible. It is blatantly facilitating copyright infringement. (It doesn’t actually do the infringing, tho.) If I were a musician, I’d be pissed.

As a consumer, however, I LOVE IT. It does for me what I have always dreamed of: allows me to get the ONE song out of 10 or 15 that i like, and ignore the rest. I HATE having to buy a $16 CD for one damn tune.

I have said since I started using it that I would happily, joyfully, without a peep, pay a monthly fee for access. I WANT to compensate the artists. I just don’t want to compensate them by bying a whole CD of music I don’t want.

I think it is very unfortunate that the record companies chose to turn down the payment offer, and it amazes me that they do not understand that the ONLY reason they have been able to go after Napster is because the way it is designed makes it hard to be very underground. The need for central servers of databases…but other technologies don’t need to be nearly so visible, and they are nearly as effective. They aren’t going to stop file sharing, so they would be smarter to find a way to make it pay.

6

Sweet mercy, people, Napster is becoming a new “way-too-many-times-debated” topic. In fact, comments like mine about it being too common are becoming too common.

Napster is shutting down. Some agree, some don’t. We all want free stuff.

If you have feelings, revive an old thread and post there!!

Excuse me while I go compose myself.

7

I’ve been watching this issue fairly carefully for a number of years now. I could have told you 3 years ago that MP3 would eventually become more mainstream, Napster just happened to be the vehicle. The recording industry doesn’t seem to realize that MP3s have become extremely common, and that restricting one system of distribution doesn’t change anything. I had well over a thousand MP3s before Napster came around, but I was the exception. Now there are a few million people who have a few thousand MP3s. Do the record companies honestly think that these people are going say “Oh well, now that Napster has been crippled I guess I just have to stop downloading MP3s” ? That brings up another point, there are server selection programs for Napster, (eg. napigator), that allow the user to choose an independent server on which Napster can not restrict certain songs. Mp3 won’t just go away, and the problem doesn’t end with Napster. If the record companies choose not offer a system where people can acquire songs legally, they are throwing a potentially extremely lucrative industry expansion in the toilet.

8

Ok, both sides have a point, but the record industy is on the short end of the stick here.

 We all know the law say that music can not be re-recorded and redistibuted FOR PROFIT. Napster ISN'T making a profit from redistributing songs. They make a profit from advertisers. If Napster had a monthly fee, it would be similar to the US Postal Service charging us for e-mails; paying for something the beneficiary does not provide. Napster would be making money for doing nothing. The record artists would make the music, and the users decide if they want to share or not.

 Of course, there's a difference between sharing amongst friends, and sharing amongst 60,000,000 people. But that doesn't explain the increse in record sales. All Napster has done is changed, "Hey, can I borrow that CD to copy?" to, "Hey, can I download that song?" Pretty weak argument by the recording industry.

 The one time $1,000,000,000 offer Napster made to recording moguls was more than fair. With record sales going up, that's just extra revenue from a cheap shot whining competition with the courts.

 I'm sure my argument is swayed towards Napster because I have 700 mp3's...but c'mon...I still buy CD's. Even after downloading entire comedy routines by various comedians, I want the full CD because I don't have a burner to make distributable copies.

 I'm sure the RIAA would like a little bread and chees to go along with that whine in court.
9

And again, we see those who think free lunches should be distributed to mankind for their consumption ignoring fact and law to complain someone else is making money at their expense, which is viewed as fundamentally unfair. Not one person responding so far has addressed the law applicable to the case. When someone shows how what was done was legal, then I’ll listen to the cries for pity. Otherwise, the real whining is coming from the people who don’t like the fact free lunch distribution usually ends up disrupted by real life.

10

Well the law says that artists are for hire and record companies get to keep the copyrights. The record companies and artists simply charge too much because they have a monopoly. They are akin to train companies of 100 years ago:) So Napster hopefully will cause changes to the law to make it more fair to artists and consumers and less to record companies. Napster was just doing the normal thing of the internet, providing stuff for free.

11

The record companies say they are loosing money because of
Napster…

hmmm…lets see.

CD sales are up…

Most people who download a entire CD’s worth of sound files
would not buy the CD anyway

Many Napster users are only looking for a few files off
any one CD or are looking to ‘try before you buy’

What about all the songs that are ‘out of print’…hard
to make money off something if you no longer make it

What about the songs that are not available here because
they are made in another country…again hard to make
money off something if its not available.

I’ve used Napster some…with only around a 20% success
rate (the few others i know that use Nap. get around the
same) on downloads it can be tough to get one file let
alone a whole group.

I’ve even bought CD’s after downloading a few files (I
would not have bought them without being able to hear
something more than the 1 or 2 songs played on the radio)

12

I’ve said it before, and so have others. This kinda boils down to a matter of “intellectual Property” as a concept being unfit to exist in an age where infgormation is free. The market system is based on supply and demand, and a presumed sacrcity of supply. When information is absoulultely free to anyone (as it has become in the internet age) corporations and industries based on the selling and controlling of information resort to creating an artificial scarcity (in the form of “intelectual property” and “licence agreements”) to maintain control of thier nonexistent property.
The bottom line is information is free. I can go online and get medical advice stock tips, legal insight, music, and a host of other forms of information, but that doesn’t negate the need for doctors, stock brokers (at the latest crash has them smugly reminding us), lawyers, or musicians. The commonality here is that all of the above are actually service industries, but unfortunately the recording industry has misguidedly established itself as a production industry, and is reaping the iwnds of this hubris now. Art can’t be capured on a disc of thalocyanine. CDs are advertsiements for art, not a replacement for the thill of seeing an artist at work. Musicians generally recognize this. In particular young musicians realize that they have far more potential to make a living by touring and making art live than they do by sitting at home waiting for their $1 for every $18 CD they sell.
When musicians and software writers and others who sell “intellectual property” agree collectively that they are actually service providers, and not product salemen of nonesistent “properties”, they will be much better equipped to deal with a reality that intellectual property is fast becoming the oxymoron of the 21st century.

CJ

13

The record companies’ fear of Napster goes well beyond the infringement on intellectual property.

As it is, you can listen to music for free anytime you want, either on the radio or on MTV. It is being paid for by those stations via advertisers. So why are the record companies resistant to making similar arrangements with file-sharing facilitators like Napster?

Because unlike the radio and MTV, Napster allows you to listen for free to the music that you want to listen to, NOT what the record companies want you to listen to. Record companies are, for the most part, marketing entities, and they make their money by manipulating what gets played in the media. Napster gives that control to the consumer, and not just in the nebulous, least-common-denominator manner that radio stations and MTV claim to.

I am a Napster user, and I have a CD burner, yet I still buy CDs with the same regularity that I ever have, if not more. Why? 1.) I like shopping for music. 2.) I like the physical aspects of a CD–cover art, liner notes, etc. 3.) Finding and downloading CD-quality music remains a pain in the ass, since I have a dial-up connection. 4.) The cost of CDs is not enough to override 1-3. (If CDs were $50 each, it would be more often worth the trouble to download the music instead, and I could do without the cover art and shopping experience. If CDs were $5, I would never even think about using Napster.)

#3 will cease to be a problem as bandwidth increases. Making Napster go away will not make file sharing go away, unless we’re willing to accept nearly total regulation of the Internet. When it becomes possible to make a perfect rendering of a CD at home for free in a minimal amount of time, people will have a hard time going out and paying current CD prices just for cover art. (I don’t think the morality of it occurs to most people.)

The record companies know this–they didn’t get where they are by being stupid. They’re trying to hang on to the current model for as long as possible, and milk it for all they can. The best thing they could do is offer reliable downloads of their catalogs, costing enough to still pay the artists and make a profit themselves but cheap enough that people will pay it rather than go around them. Then they can price CDs so that those of us with a preference for that medium will be willing to pay for them.

The music industry is going to change completely, and it’s going to be a great thing for the consumer and for music itself. It’s just going to take a while.

Dr. J

14

My two cents:

Napster, as a service that lets user share files, is not wrong in and of itself.

The users of Napster, however (including myself), are violating copyright laws by using the service to share copyrighted material.

Napster is getting sued for the abuse of its members.
In a way, the whole Napster issue is like videotapes – if I record a show on my VCR, it’s no big deal. If I make a zillon copies for my friends, however…?

15

I’ve never used Napster. I never will. I’m not missing anything.

Downloading illegal music is like using illegal drugs in that they both are ILLEGAL. Period.

“But they’re…”

PERIOD.

“But I…”

PERIOD.

Illegally.

Neither is murder or rape. Let’s legalize those, too. Personally, I’ve never found anything wrong with raping someone, so since I don’t find anything wrong with it, you can’t either. :rolleyes:

Doesn’t matter. They’re still having their property stolen from them.

I like rape and murder. I think the narrow-minded people like yourself (no offense meant there) need to open up a little.

“Robbing from the rich to give to the poor”, eh? It’s still illegal. Is this too hard a concept to understand? That if you don’t pay for a product or service that doesn’t belong to you, it’s not lawful?

I think you guys spend too much time trying to justify the things you do. You’d think you had a guilty conscience or something. Just download the damn music and don’t give a crap about what other people think.

Oh, your precious new religion, Napster, is being taken away? Tough shit, boy. Get crackin’ through Audiofind or Scour - or, for those of you with REAL balls, go through independent websites - to find your oh-so-precious music. Or you can spend twenty bucks (spend money? Horros!) and buy a standard AM/FM radio.

16

I think we’re all kinda shooting for the forest but landing in the trees here.

The record companies are a service…I agree with that. The <i>users</i> of Napster are the infringers. And music copyrights are only good for so long.

SPOOFE: I agree…sort of. If you buy a CD, you now OWN that performance…you paid for it. If you make copies of it, you OWN not only the performance, but the medium. Now what? Rip the sucker and share it…nothing illegal about that. Why do you think it’s called BUYING CDs and not LEASING them? Because in the end…you OWN the content.

But maybe shutting down Napster was a good thing. Napigator is so much better. And it uses the Napster shell you downloaded and username you signed up for. Hey, if it’s better…DOWN WITH NAPSTER!

17

BZZZT!!! Wrong answer, thank you for playing! Try reading the liner notes to your CDs sometime, and you will find…hmm, I just looked at 5 CDs and couldn’t find what I was looking for. Well…the point is, when you buy a CD (or album, or tape) you are not BUYING the music, you are buying a LICENSE to own the music for personal enjoyment. You are allowed to make as many copies as you like for your own PERSONAL enjoyment (CDR for the car player, mp3 for the laptop, etc.) as long as you still own the original media. Once you sell or give away the original media, all copies you made become illegal and must be destroyed. (Yeah, I was unaware of that for a long time, too.)

Now, everyone’s probably thinking, “If you know it’s against the law, why do you support Napster?” Well, mainly because I’m a free-thinking anarchist. :slight_smile: But seriously, I believe that our copyright laws are outdated and monolithic and should, nay MUST, be changed. I have little patience with the viewpoints of such people as DSYoungEsq who just point to the law and say, “That’s the way it is, live with it,” especially when I believe that the laws in question are inherently unfair to begin with.

As for “Napster getting sued for the abuse of its members,” well the whole point of the legal battle is that Napster is knowingly facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs. The key word here is “knowingly”. If someone was dealing crack out of your basement, you can’t be held liable if you were 100% unaware of it. But you CAN be held liable if you were aware of it, and did nothing to stop it.

J.E.T.

18

maybe I’m typing in german again and didn’t realize it, but I don’t really hear any of the hardline anti napster respondents addressing what I think are some very valid, important points about the antiquated nature of intellectual property and licencing law in general.

I'd also add that I find comparison between the use of Napster and rape and murder sort of hyperbolic at best, downright insulting at worst.

In short, I think you'd find an informed concensus would agree that in addition to being illegal, rape and murder are morally wrong. I would venture to guess that among informed commentators, you'd find no such consensus regarding intellectual property protection. Legal mandate does not morality imply.

Its pretty safe to say that Napster violates the law. I argued in my last post that the law is difficult to defend ethically, and ridiculously prohibitive to enforce practically and technologically.

CJ

19

Not under the strictest letter of the law, although there’s almost no way they can find out about it. To follow the law 100%, you are only allowed to make a single copy of any copyrighted material, for archival purposes.

I don’t think it should be “changed” (which implies “making something completely different”), so much as it should be updated to deal with the different dimensions that the Internet and digital media in general bring.

I believe that intellectual property should still be preserved, even IF the “evil, horrible, Satan-worshipping, virgin-sacrificing Record Companies” are the ones who really own the license. Property is property, in my mind, and while a single Mp3 trade may seem like nothing… over Napster, millions of Mp3’s got traded, which translates into millions of dollars of lost revenue overall. And you can NEVER convince me that millions of dollars is “insignificant” (inflation ain’t that bad yet).

Damn straight… Napster wussified the whole Mp3 movement. We’ve got shmoes on there who wouldn’t know how to type “Mp3” into a search engine.

::grumble grumble Not like the good ol’ days grumble grumble::

20

Here’s a quiz…

True or false: Downloading an illegal Mp3 is illegal.

True or false: Murder and rape is illegal.

Did you answer “True” to each question? Congratulations, you get an A! But then why do you find the comparison difficult to understand?

The point, Mr. Hat, is that just because one think that a law should be changed in order to appeal to one’s sense of instant gratification, that doesn’t mean it should be so. Property is property, whether or not you can touch it, and people should be compensated for the goods and services they provide. This is simple common sense.