Napster's Downfall....

Great Debates
21

Spoofe, I’m sure I don’t appreciate your tone, but since you like quizzes:

Given the choice would you rather I
A) raped and murdered you?
B) or stole some of your intellectual property?

And since we’ve greenlighted hyperbole for the sake of making our arguements:
Until about 140 years ago we had leagal provisions for slavery. And until about 30 some years ago, we had legal provisions for racial discrimitation. Are you so sure that our legal system is a perfect moral code?

I’d also appreciate it if you’d actually read the content of my posts a little bit. I accepted the illegality of Napster under current law as a given. Don’t shove it down my throat.

I’m gonna try once again to distill my point a little further, in hopes that someone will address the merit or my argument, rather than paroting the letter of the law.

here goes:
Information is, as a result of the internet, completely free. Anything that can be represented binarily is information. Therefore anything that can be represented binarily is free to anyone who wants it.
This fact is both morally sound and prohibitively complicated to avoid.
The recording industry and the very notion of intellectual property are build only the faulty concept of “controlling information”. This is no longer viable, and the recording industry and other “IP” industries have been struggling to contort the traditional structure of a
production based market economy to fit thier needs. To qoute myself: “Intellectual property” is fast becoming the oxymoron of the 21st century.

 We still need artists an musicians and ther is an economic model that allows them to make money at thier art. It involves returning to what musicians were for thousands of years before IP laws existed. They were a service industry. They were payed for performing.

 The only reason we believe otherwise is becuase the recording industry has siezed the opportunity to create a fraudulent production industry in the form of records. Records were origianlly and will again be, simply promotional tools.

   I am at a loss as to how I might make this point any clearer. I'm not being dismissive of dissent. I just haven't heard anyone actually address the merits of my arguement. Yes its illegal. The law is wrong. Its artificial. and perhaps more importantly, its unenforceable.

CJ

22

As sort of a side note to all of this, I’d like to further say that its been my experience that most of the musicians who object to Napster so strenoously are the musicians who are powerful and wealthy enough to ignore the marketing and promotional benefits of free distibution of recorded materials. As someone whos spent more than a his share of time in a struggling giging band, the idea of people being able to hear my music freely and by word of mouth is awesome. And in fact some of my favorite acts are acts that I came across online or on mixtapes of pirated intellectual property.
Free distribution can only really be argued to threaten the interests of the industry itself and of “rock stars”. most of the little guys love the idea of free distribution of thier music. Hell, most of the bands I know burn a thousand CDs and stand outside of clubs and give them away. The internet is cheaper and more efficient.
Get it through your heads that CDs are basically business cards and this we be a lot easier to process. Anything that turns art into a solitary thing that can be done in ones bedroom rather than communally isn’t a great leap forward. Art started communally, and ironically the internet is forcing it to embrace those roots again. Musicians are performers, not makers of product.
CJ

23

Bad Hat–where do writers fit into your world of free information? Sure, musicians can get out and make money playing gigs, but writers can’t exactly make a living out of readings. They need to be paid for their work, and they need some way to prevent me from copying their books, word for word, and selling them as my own (either physically or electronically).

I agree with you about the inevitability of file sharing (see my post above). I just think the industry needs to be figuring out how to work with it rather than fighting against it.

A couple more points on Napster:
–The future of the music biz can be seen, IMO, in the work of Ani DiFranco. For those who don’t know her, she is an extremely talented singer-songwriter who would probably be a superstar if she didn’t insist on working through her own independent record label (Righteous Babe Records). She does all her own promotion, distribution, etc., and as a result she has lost a lot of radio play. However, she maintains complete control of her work.

She also makes, as the artist, over four bucks per CD sold–over twice what an artist on a major label could ever hope to make. (IIRC, it’s usually around $1-2 per unit.) Of course, she still doesn’t make nearly as much money as a major-label artist, since she doesn’t sell as many CDs.

The internet and file sharing services can make the two main functions of a major label–promotion and distribution–much easier for an operation like Righteous Babe. The more middlemen that can be eliminated, the better for both the fans and the artists. The major record labels–i.e., the middlemen–would be the only losers.

Ani has succeeded on her own for one big reason–she’s talented as all hell. Pick up Living In Clip if you don’t believe me. Other, less talented artists couldn’t make it work. But when success in the music business correlates with talent, that can’t be a bad thing.

–All this said, I am not exactly on Napster’s side here. I’ve mentioned before my major beef with them–they are trying to portray themselves as a grass-roots uprising, a “community of music lovers” who are fighting against the “evil corporate middlemen”. In reality, they are a for-profit entity sitting on a shit pot full of venture capital, hoping they can stay alive long enough to turn a buck. They want to be the new middlemen. I would love to see them go down and the real grass-roots versions rise in their place.

Dr. J (whose long posts today only indicate how much he doesn’t want to study for his Neurology final)

24

I was afraid you’d ask that DR J. Writers are tricky, but i guess what I am advocating is sort of an extremist position. I spend a lot of time discussing this theory with proponents of the open source movement in software. Basically the idea there being that code is free and tech geeks should focus on being “experts” and consulting and customizing applications to the needs of users instead of pretending to sell a product. I really like the idea, and i truely believe that whether or not one agrees with it, its fast becoming a debate of “how do we deal with this” rather than “is it right or not” because the latter question is fast becoming obsolete.
Someone recently challenged me by saying “how is a CD different that a painters canvas, doesn’t that musician own thier music the same way an artist owns his canvas?” and for better or worse, the answer I keep coming up with is not exactly, because and artist IS creating a product. A singular physical product, as opposed to musicians and authors who deal in creating ideas or experiences.
So to answer, (or maybe not answer) your question: I don’t really know. And according to the paradigm within which i am working, I gues the answer is that as a way to make money authorship may be doomed. I find this troubling too, but there are other ways around it. Lecturing, signings, readings, and playwrighting spring to mind.
Interesting that you brought up Ani, as I am also a big fan, and i think that this is an excellent example in some ways of what I am talking about. For the most part, what is really threatened by these developments is centralization of wealth and influence. The arts as they exist today are largely EXTREMELY lucrative and rewarding to a very few, and brutally indefferent to the great majority. I believe that the record companies (and I am not demonizing them really, just pointing out some things) are largely to blame for this.
Its not limited to the RIAA, but rather a manifestation of a general economic trend towards large comprehensive conpanies overselling, underbidding, and forcing mom and pops out of business. “the rich get richer” sort of thing. While this may be tolerable when it comes to cars or cable companies or operating systems it is inherantly inadequate to deal with something as intangible as art. And in a quest for profit, the record companies will take an Eminem or a Back Street Boys over an Ani D or Yo La Tengo or Cornershop anytime. And who could blame them, economically speaking?
If the internet, along with cheaper recording gear, and a popular dissatisfaction with the lowest common denominator mentality of the recording industry, results in a decentralization of wealth and status, and means that more people are able to find music they like, and support it on thier terms in thier communities, then I say, onward!!! Show me a musician in the middle class, working and touring for a living, with a modest but respectable regional fan base who doesn’t like the idea of free distribution as a form of marketing.
What we are really supporting when we support the RI is an abomination that has made a fortune out of packaging, marketing and narrowing the minds of millions of consumers. They’ve turned what was originally designed to be a promotional tool to play on the radio when the band was coming to town, into. And who benefits? well the 16 to 17 dollars the keep out of every 18 that you spend on a CD should answer that.
But DR J, back to your original question. I’m still working on it. Suggestions? Anyone?
CJ

25

also Dr J:
good luck on that Neuro final!!!
CJ

26

I’m gonna babble about this a bit more if I may, just as sort of an explanation of where my sort-of hard line views come from.
I work in live theatre for a living (as a composer, no less). As such i am very committed to the idea of art as a communal experience, and as a member of a very tightnit local theatre community I am also a big fan of supporting local arts. I think, while there are great artists on the national and interenational level, there is so much more to appreciate on a local level. And i think that and educated cultured public should look beyond megacelebrities playing in 50,000 seat arenas and relaize that very often, your neighbor, who play in a bar band on fridays, and whose concert you counld see 5 times from the price of one U2 ticket has something to say that is much more meaningful and immediate in your life than your average rock star.
When people say, “well how would you feel if someone stole one of your scores and pawned it as his or her own?” my response is, my community is very close, and such behavior wouldn’t last very long. My peers know me, and audiences and critics know me too, and my work (at its best, HOPEFULLY) offers something not better or worse than that of anyone else, but unique to my abilities and perspective. If the internet helps break down the mentality of the megasuperstar worship and redistributes public interest and money to a very deserving and diverse group of artists, sign me up.
I like the idea of working towards a world like this. If you take away the incentive for theft (the lure of fame and fortune) and reposition artists as community members, active first and formost as local entities, then the motivation (and realistic chances for success) in fraud is diminished significantly. No I’m not stupid, i realize that we don’t live in this world yet, but if I don’t try, then I’m no better than those I see as the problem.
I’m done now… for a little while
CJ

27

**
Could you please show me a report that proves CONCLUSIVELY how mp3-trading has caused any sort of decline in record sales overall? It seems to me the record industry is healthier than its ever been, in fact some bands (especially Metallica) have gained even more popularity (and theoretically sales) by attaching themselves to the legal battle, and sales of underground artists have skyrocketed due to increased exposure from mp3-trading. I personally know independent musicians who say, to quote them directly, “Napster is the best thing that could have happened to us.”

**
And why do you find it so hard to understand that is a totally ridiculous comparison? Hmm, maybe I should kill all the members of Metallica and rape their wives and children, after all it’s no different than what I did by downloading all their music without paying for it.

Oh yeah, I remember the “good ol’ days”. When all the mp3s you could find were shitty 128kbps rippings and any website or FTP server that appeared would only last a week. Yeah, some people on Napster don’t have a clue, posting songs with wrong titles and not bothering to check them for defects, but for the most part you could find a perfect recording of ANY song you look for, be it the new Britney Spears hit or an obscure Pearl Jam b-side, and you only have to go one place to look for it. I would have gladly paid $10 a month or more if the record companies allowed Napster to remain as it was – but it’s all about greed, control, and market manipulation with these people. Well, fuck 'em. I’ll be right there when the next free, unrestricted service opens its doors (I hear WinMX is pretty good) – and you know it’s gonna happen. Napster may be doomed, but mp3-trading will continue to prosper, and there is NOTHING the courts or the record industry can do about it!!!

28

What you are talking about is plagiarism and is an entirely different ball of wax altogether. Not that it’s not uncommon in either the music or writing industry – Led Zeppelin stole many of their songs, and Hollywood is notorious for stealing the ideas of little-known writers.

As for e-texts…well, there are many good reasons why it never caught on like mp3s did. Copying a book into electronic form is difficult and labor-intensive, whether you’re typing it by hand or scanning the pages with OCR software (which is hardly a perfect science at this point.) Perhaps, if copying books became as simple as popping a CD into your computer and clicking a few buttons, the writing industry will face the same sort of “crisis” that the RIAA is facing right now. Still, books are a totally different medium than records – a lot of people will always prefer to curl up on the sofa with a good novel in their hands instead of a Palm Pilot, or a big stack of printer paper. Even with old literature that’s in public domain, it’s just not the same.

J.E.T.

29

I apologize for the tone.

As for your question, only a moron or a smartass would say “A”. Didn’t you know that?

Just because rape and murder is worse than petty theft, that doesn’t make the petty theft “less illegal”.

And, once again, you missed the point. I pointed it out in a previous post. What was it you said about “please read the whole post before responding”…? Oh, nevermind.

Jeremy…

You have $100 in your wallet. Your wallet then gets stolen. As you’re walking down to the police station to report your stolen wallet, you find a wallet with $100 in it.

Question: Was your wallet still stolen?

Of course it’s a ridiculous comparison. Duh. Why do you think I brought it up?

YOU said “Mp3 trading isn’t going away” to support your argument that record labels should allow people to steal their merchandise (“copyright law is basically useless” and all that… remember?).

In other words, Mr. Evil Twin… your original argument was ALSO ridiculous.

Here’s a present for you and Mr. Hat both. It’s a jumbo-sized whoosh!

“Shitty 128kbps rippings”? You DO know that that’s the suggested standard for most people?

I tried being subtle, and it went over your head like a 747, so I’ll be clear, concise, and I’ll try to use small words.

Just because it’s a difficult law to enforce, that doesn’t mean our judicial system shouldn’t try to enforce it.

30

Spoofe,
I’m not sure how you can consider comparing copywright infringment to rape and murder “subtle”, and you aren’t going over anyones heads here. Time and time again, you remind us that is illegal by comparing it to other illegal things, and time and time again, I have said essentially this:

I know its illegal, I think the law is stupid and antiquated, and destined for legislative obscurity. (and from there I have given about a senior thesis worth of ramblings on why i fel that the law is wrong).

No one is tryingto convince you that Napster INS’T illegal.

But if “its illegal” was a reasonable end to an ethics debate, we would still have slaves. Legality doesn’t imply righteousness. The law evolves and reacts to societies needs. Lets keep this going, and I’ll keep the fangs sheathed if you will, but get over the legality already. I conceded that many posts ago.
CJ

31

if only i could type…
sorry
CJ

32

OK i’ll admit, i REALLY didn’t follow you there.
I think what the twinster is trying to say is: how are these laws (which is supposed to be protecting somebody or other) defensible, when they really aren’t protecting anybody from anything, or atleast aren’t protecting a fraction of the people that they are limiting (particularly when said protection is of dubious validity in the first place)? it goes back to what we’ve said: yes its illegal, but the law is stupid.
CJ

33

Bad Hat said

I’d bet that I haven’t heard of any of the ‘bands you know’. Reason? They’re not famous. Can you cite mainstream (i.e. famous, well-known, not ‘little guys’ etc) bands who voluntarily give away their livelihood?

FTR, I’m 100% with Spoofe on this one. Just because you can do it (you can), just because you probably can’t stop it (you can’t) doesn’t make it right.

I think I have an answer to this. To all the people who say ‘ahh, but I really only wanted one track’, or ‘of course, I go out and buy the album once I’ve downloaded it from napster’ I ask you to comment on the following:

  1. allow napster/et al to record the first 30 seconds of all tracks; you’ll probably know within that time whether you like the track.

  2. Get the record companies to set up their own download sites, where you can download individual tracks for some % of the album price.

  3. Record companies allow napster/et al to source deleted albums, perhaps for a token fee.

Presumably, you’d all be happy with this?

34

I’d be fine with that. It’s been posted before, but there’s nothing wrong with the service Napster provides (except perhaps that it isn’t under the control of the evil record companies?), it’s just the way it’s used.

Maybe if the record companies realised that people use Napster not only because it’s free, but also convenient, they’d adopt a similar system themselves. Whether they like it or not, the Mp3 (or similar formats in the future) will be (and is now, arguably) the medium for music distribution. The only thing that needs to be worked out is how to take your money and send it to the right artist…

Or they could have people downloading mp3s at music stores and paying at the door…

Think this will ever happen?

35

Xerxes,
3 things about your comment on famous bands and Napster.

  1. Roger McGuinn, Chuck D., Neil Young, Limp Bizcut, Wu Tang Clan, Pearl Jam, just off the top of my head. There are many more, which kinda goes to my point that these livelihoods aren’t really all that threatened by napster. And most of these artists (and i believe Roger mcGuinn actually said so in an intereview, I’ll look for it) admit that most acts make most of thier money selling concert tickets. unless you are selling many tens of thousands of records (which a VERY small percent of musicians are) royalties from record sales are paultry to begin with.

  2. NO, most of the people to whom i was referring aren’t famous, and excuse me for valuing the careers and financial sucess of struggling working class local artists over those on multi millionaire rock stars, how selfish of me. Seriously, I hate to be rude, but I saw that opening comment, and thought, “well its about time somebody stood up for the metallicas and Rolling Stone’s of the world, come on… seriously…” While most of us do tend to think of the recording industry as being the domain of the rich and famous, many many more artists making a living as musicians live on the fringe, and if all things were equal (which as I’ve stated above I don’t believe they are) I would still come down in favor of a n economic/ distribution model that helped to decentralize the money and power in the record industry. And by that I mean, most small artists that I know (admittedly a limited pool, but the best I can do) think that the internet as a system of electronic distribution of thier tracks for free on line is a godsend. Much cheaper than burning a thousand CD’s to throw around in front of clubs.

  3. Hi Opal!!! (I’ve never done that before, but i’m doing it this time to celebrate quietly my 100th post).

I’ll also say that, lest I be accused of rationalizing my own criminal behavior, I don’t even actually use Napster. I have it on my computer, and downloaded a couple of live tracks about 6 months ago, but since then I’ve been over it. The sound quality, to my finicky ears, is not really listenable. I am also a recording artist. Just sharing in the spirit of full disclosure. My arguement is deeper than that becase it can’t be stopped it shoud be legalized, my argument is that music was never supposed to be a sales industry to begin with. I firmly believe that recordings are marketing tools and that musicians should be (and by and large are) making thier money as performers, not as salesmen.

“the reocrd industry’s just a better built cell block”
-Mos Def

CJ

36

and to answer your question about fee structure, and would I be happy with it:
NO.

 I would not be happy with any system where people are forced to pay for downloading music. Thats the whole point. Its like purchasing air. Its artificial. Its everywhere, its free. Purchasing it is laughable. This debate is going to look so silly in twenty years.
 of course, in addition to hating napster's sound quality and being an artist, I am also basically  a socialist(if my droning on about artists as community members and shit hadn't clued you in already).

CJ

37

Not it doesn’t, and no they don’t, but thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

38

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly

I don’t really follow yr analogy totally but I have to take issue with your assertion that downloading mp3’s is akin to stealing the $100 in your example.

When someone downloads music and doesn’t buy the album/single, the record company doesn’t loose a physical item or sale; they lose a potential sale. If I were to, for example, steal a bicycle from Wal-Mart, it’s very easy to see how that costs them money. Wal-Mart has to pay to replace the bike and they may lose a sale if the same bike isn’t available to another customer who wants it.

The reason I draw a distinction between a sale and potential sale is because it doesn’t follow that a person that downloads mp3s would ever buy the music if he or she had not been able to get it for free. In an interview (in Rolling Stone several months ago I think) a guy who had downloaded and burned 2-300 albums onto CDR’s said that without file sharing he would have bought a very small fraction of the music he burned. He thought that CDs were way more expensive then they are worth. He is similar to others I have come across personally. While I find this guy and others like him to be pretty cheesy, it shows one reason why the record industry can have a record year while file sharing exists. The labels would have never got these guys’ money.

However if I (and most of the people I know) download something and like it, we buy the album. One reason is that the sound is better and you get the packaging and stuff, but another is the fact that we recognize the need to support the artist financially. On the other hand the major labels are afraid that the lowest common denominator audience that they the market and hype their (for the most part) pabulum crap to won’t see it that way. The record industry has been making a killing selling disposable, flavor of the month, entertainment for decades. With file sharing, people are gaining the easy ability to get this music for what it’s worth, nothing.

39

U2 actually released all of the songs from thier most recent album online before the CD release date. As did (IIRC) Dave Matthews. Its impossible to say whether this hurt sales or not, but last I checked, they were both still paying the gas bill on time.
I can’t stress this enough: most recording artists make squat from thier $1-2 per album deals. Imagine you sell 100,000 units in a year (which is a massive figure for your non backstreet boys recording artist), divide that 1 dollar up by four or five members, take out 15% for management, 15% for Agent, another chunk for taxes, give the record company back what you owe them for all your leather jackets and guitars and dope…

getting the picture?
IF these guys sat at home and waited for thier checks from Geffen, they’d starve to death. Royalties are a minor part of income, and I’d venture to guess that if you did a profit analysis of:
album sales profit lost to free downloads
vs.
concert and album sales profit gain dues to exposure from free downloads

free downloads would win 9 times out of 10.

CJ

40

I hate it when I have to agree with those arguing in favor of Napster (mostly because they do it so poorly).

1. Yes, Napster use is illegal and probably should be. If you want to allow for the concepts of intellectual property and copyrights (both very useful concepts), there’s really no way around that.
a: If there are no complaintants (sp?) with standing, the law need not be enforced in a given case, agreed?
b: I’m not entirely convinced that record companies should be complaining in the first place, as there is scant evidence that Napster’s existence costs them money on the whole. Ditto musicians.

2. Napster use (given that the band in question was unwilling to have their music shared in such a manner) certainly fits one of my criteria for “theft.” i.e., if I use something without the permission of the owner, I am stealing it (example: I take my friends car out while he’s sleeping – despite the fact that he has explicitly asked me not to do so – and return it before he wakes up in perfect condition with a full tank of gas, thus ensuring that I have in no way hindered his use of the car. I still stole it during the night, regardless).
a: That Napster use is theft does not necessarily make it wrong. (1) Harm need not be done to the artist(s) by your piracy. If you download a CD in lieu of buying it, than you are doing them harm and thus, we should agree (though some here won’t, regrettably) doing wrong. If you download music that you would not have otherwise paid for – or if said download leads to your purchase of the respective CD(s) in question – only happiness is the result of your action (or so we assume). (2) If you contend that the mere act of disrespecting an artist’s wishes is harmful (or if you feel that “harm” is an incorrect or arbitrary way to judge ethics), then you should at least consider that even the artists and record companies that oppose Napster would be hard-pressed to object to the kind of Napster use that I referred to above. If you understand the complaintants’ reasons for opposing use of Napster, is it not germane to use Napster if those reasons genuinely do not apply to you? If no understanding is had, is it not at least reasonable to assume that the complaintants oppose Napster because they do not wish to be (financially) harmed by it, and that you can act as you wish within their wishes so long as you do not do so?

Anyway, I’m afraid I’ve got class now. Will be back later.

– Jer