Napster Anyone?

P Gleespen · Post by **P Gleespen** » 19 Sep 2000 2:03 am

Go Back up and re-read Harrison Adler's post if you missed it. It's much more clear and well put than what I tried to say!

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 19 Sep 2000 2:32 am

Harrison's post is indeed on track.

There is indeed technology existing today to deliver content in a 'safe enough' way. I say safe enough, because the way things are now, any protection on music content delivered to a computer can be easily be defeated. There are protection schemes out there which make it clear to the person doing the listening that if they were to defeat the protection, they would be violating the law. That's all it takes for most people who have some sense of ethics.

When I say protected music, I am not talking strictly about paying for rights to hear music. I as an artist might decide to freely distribute high quality samples, if the listener were forced to send me a valid email address. Or I might decide to deliver free high quality versions to everybody, but I would want to insist that the URL to my web site was available to listeners.

This technology is out there and it works. Shame on the major labels for not adopting it sooner. BUt double shame on Napster and the like for choosing a format (MP3) which is incapable of adding at least a minimal level of protection for the artist/songwriter.

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com

Keith DeLong · Post by **Keith DeLong** » 19 Sep 2000 3:23 am

I read somewhere that there has been a move afoot to launch something called "Lapster", which would be a "legal Napster", that is, artists would somehow get royalties when music is downloaded. Anyone heard of this?

Keith DeLong

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 19 Sep 2000 4:41 am

Like it or not...... As long as there is any way to get any kind of material(be it music,books,food,etc,etc) free of charge, the human species IS going to do it. Race,creed,religon,has nothing to do with it. For whatever reason one may think of,the material will be persued. As for the music, (which seems to be the main thing here) Why should I pay $14.00-$16.00 for a CD just to aquire one track frome it when I can get the same song free off the radio, from "Napster", or borrow my friends CD ???

Now I do understand whats right and whats wrong but it is human nature to aquire it as "cheap" as possible. Look at the Bill Gates thing for instance, According to Microsoft, 90% of all it's product line is ripped off. Only 10% is legally purchased. I dont know how to explain that Mr. Gates is (by world admittence) the world's richest man. If 10% of a product can do make many,many millionaries for a company, I don't think too many people are going to be worried about the big dogs( Music Industry, IRAA,Sony,RCA,etc,etc) not being able to purchase fine cars and such.

Harrison Adler · Post by **Harrison Adler** » 19 Sep 2000 7:40 am

Bill, If you truly understand right and wrong and then rationalize what you understand is a wrong action, aren't you acting unethically as well as illegally at that point? Stealing small is no less odious than stealing big. As far as rationalizing theft by the argument that you are stealing from the rich, well, I shouldn't have to go there. The rationalization that no artist has been hurt by MP3 or Napster is also a dead end. Intellectual property has to be protected by the Federal government or the US would be in violation of international copyright law (the Berne Convention to which we have been a signatory for about 25 years). It is totally irrelevant whether or not an artist is hurt be the theft. Copyright literally means the "right to copy." That right belongs to the copyright holder. Take that right away in one segment and the entire structure is in danger of crumbling. Ask yourself if you really want a world where intellectual property is unprotected. If you say yes, let's talk about that one.

Harrison

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 19 Sep 2000 7:52 am

I hear what Dan says, but I see little difference in whether the big recording conpanies, or Napster, rips off the artist! Think of this...did the Encyclopedia industry ask the government to step in when the internet came along? No, they realized that their time was just about over, and unless they got into electronic distribution they would be history.

The old system of a big company making big profits off of singers and players is fast coming to an end. But, keep in mind that I am all for electronic distribution only if the artists and musicians get MOST of the money. Up 'til now, only the biggest stars could make a good living recording, and I think it's time for a change.

My system would work like this...

The artist (maybe with a backer) pays a recording company, or just a studio, to record their music. Then, the artist sells it over the internet, and maybe through a "clearing house", and for their services, they collect, say 10% of the selling price, and ALL the rest goes to the artists and musicians. Sooner or later, some entrepreneur will discover that he can make a sizeable profit from producing reasonably priced (say a buck apeice) bulk runs of CDs for the ARTIST to sell wherever he chooses. Under this system an artist could make as the same money as he makes now from one tenth of the sales.

Does any other great artist (painter, sculptor, ect.) fork over 90% of his selling price to a "production and distribution outfit"? I think not!

Musicians are artists, and not assembly-line workers. THEY should get the bulk of the money for their labors!

Adam · Post by **Adam** » 19 Sep 2000 11:56 am

Nobody has answered my question yet.Does anybody have any links to news items or soundscan figures that provide even anecdotal evidence that Napster is affecting someones sales?A previous post claims that there is "lots of anecdotal evidence" of diminished sales,yet not one person here has mentioned a real-world situation where this has become a problem.

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 19 Sep 2000 12:05 pm

Adam,

I don't have the link handy any more. But it was fairly recent (in the last 3 months).

While music sales overall are UP, music sales among college students (who typically have high-bandwith connections) are DOWN.

Anecdotal? You bet.

A far cry from "reasonable doubt"? Absolutely.

A cause for concern? Probably.

Yes, theft will always be with us. What is needed is SOME SORT of system that makes it moderately difficult for consumers to blatantly copy (and distribute) music. Nothing will be foolproof, that's for sure. Just look at DVD -- didn't take long for somebody to crack the code.

What's interesting about Napster is that those who make their MP3 files available to the world have, in effect, become distributors. Unlike somebody who downloads a file, distributors of copyrighted material have little legal protection.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://members.xoom.com/dpennybaker/index.htm

Adam · Post by **Adam** » 19 Sep 2000 1:51 pm

Maybe you didn't see my previous post.I work in a CD shop on a college campus,and our sales are up!I'm not referring to some alleged link that I can't remember,If Napsters effects are so harmful how come nobody can come up with even a legitimate anecdote that supports that statement.I think you misunderstand:anecdotal information is all I really expect at this point and still nobody's got any!I would love to read that piece that you saw,David please let me know if you can locate it.
I am genuinely interested to hear any legitimate infomation about diminished CD sales.My job depends on it.

John Steele (deceased) · Post by **John Steele (deceased)** » 19 Sep 2000 3:43 pm

I can corroborate David's remark, as I read an article recently in the newspaper which explained that studies showed overall cd sales up %4 except in the vicinity of college/university campuses, where it was down %10.
It was in the Ottawa Citizen, AP wire services. I don't have a link (and if I did, the objectivity of the study would be in question, no doubt).
But I still say that's not the issue!
The issue is: Nobody else but the owners of the intellectual property have the right to decide how it should be distributed.
There are just too many legal grey areas at the moment.
The analogy in a previous thread was with Head Shops. I think it was a good one. Napster: the Bong of the Internet.
-John

Dan Dowd · Post by **Dan Dowd** » 19 Sep 2000 4:27 pm

I guess we don't have enough lawyers out there. Some of you guys might be breaking the law by ranting about how Napster is unfair. Leave that to the lawyers and goverment. You think its a free country, (well it is in comparison to some) however you need a permit to add a room on your house, not so the local goverment can make sure you did the job correct, but so they can re-evaluate your property and raise your taxes. You can't drive without a license, and better yet, try not paying your taxes. If we keep on, everything will be regulated and controlled by someone. If we are afraid of taping a song from the radio or video taping from the TV and sending it to someone where will it end. Perhaps we should shut down the radio and TV stations to prevent us from copying this material that belongs to someone else, just to make ASCAP or BMI and who ever else is out there happy, or maybe they will find a way to charge us for listening or watching. Wake up folks, we have enough well meaning eyes watching us now and we don't need any more. Why we even have a group of people in Washington who's job it is to make new laws every day. I think we need a law that says there can not be a new law made unless we eliminate an old law. After all there are only 10 commandments and they have worked for years and years. I think I feel beter now. [This message was edited by Dan Dowd on 19 September 2000 at 05:29 PM.]

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 19 Sep 2000 5:38 pm

A note to all......

I didn't mean to suggest that I use "Napster" all the time to make bulk CD's or such, in this case,I just found a song I was looking for and got it. (yea, I know I "STOLD" it.)

Harrison Adler, I think you and,Im sure many others missed the main thought of what I was trying to say in my above post. The fact remains that:

No matter what, the average comsumer is going to use the shortest,cheapest,less work, method to aquire (in our case here)the music. He isn't going to think about the artist,care about the artist,or even be concerned about his involvement with keepin' food out of the artist mouth. He dosn't care about all of us pickers,if we eat or not.

It's a sad fact of life..... People look out for #uno !! he/she got what they wanted without it costing them an arm or leg. Thats why this "Napster" thing isn't gonna go away.

I understand that there is already groups ready and waiting to get the next batch of movies just as soon as they are in bata release. I saw copies of several movies on the usergroups far before they hit the flickhouses. These ripped copies were just as good as one would want, stero and all.

NO, folks we are fighting a war here we will not even begin to make a dent in. Be it as it is, thats life and it ain't gonna change !

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 19 Sep 2000 5:42 pm

I work in a CD shop on a college campus,and our sales are up!

I remember you saying that. But, obviously, they didn't sample JUST your campus.

I don't know if AP has a searchable website or not. If it does, you could probably find something by searching on Napster, college, and sales.

The article was real. The figures that John quoted above are about what I remember.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://members.xoom.com/dpennybaker/index.htm

Bruce Bouton · Post by **Bruce Bouton** » 19 Sep 2000 7:15 pm

I'm a studio musician and a songwriter. I have already watched congress give away my royalties for airplay in dining establishments.They have allowed three corperations to control over fifty percent of the radio stations in this country (you wonder why it all sounds the same) and now I'm asked to sit quietly while my music is downloaded for free!Can anyone tell me how I'm going to make a living?

Bruce Bouton

Dan Dowd · Post by **Dan Dowd** » 20 Sep 2000 7:00 am

Bruce, I agree with you on the radio station ownership, but don't forget the newspapers, they are also owned by a few. That's why all our news is spoon fed to us as to what they want us to hear. We must be careful what we ask for , because we might get it. My son just bought 3 CD's because he was able to download one of the songs on each of them to preview. I for one could care less about the music produced today for general consumption, but I do purchase all the steel guitar CD's available at the Steel shows that I attend. That is my way of supporting you folks directly.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 20 Sep 2000 7:55 am

Historically musicians had to live off table scraps from rich guys and kings. The U.S. constitution started the idea of intellectual property and copywrite laws. So things started looking up for musicians.

Now with Napster we are back to table scraps.

I refuse to have anything to do with Napster and when people tell me about all those cool songs they stole I make sure to fully inform them of my
position.

As follows:

"If you use Napster and you make a living outside of music you are an A**hole. If you use Napster and do make a living from music you are an idiot."

Bob

------------------
Franklin D-10

Adam · Post by **Adam** » 20 Sep 2000 10:52 am

Thanks for finally bringing things down to the level of mudslinging.We're all friends here(or so I thought),so why the name-calling?
This is a complicated issue that it appears a lot of folks have formed opinions on based on an immediate emotional reaction,rather than statistical fact.I'm reminded of being a little kid and not understanding why I had to take that awful tasting medicine.I would kick and scream and think "how could anybody subject me to something so unfair?"I just didn't have the foresight to anticipate the medicine's beneficial effect.
Go ahead and kick and scream folks,but when the medicine kicks in,things are going to be better for music.
I could literally talk for hours about this,but typing about it is just making me nauseas.I'm going to go to the CD store and spend the big fat profit-sharing check that I just got from my retail job.Still think sales are down?

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 20 Sep 2000 11:14 am

Adam,
This is too complicated an issue to work out with my lame typing skills. Just so you
know I am no fan of record companies and standard distribution methods either. I have
been ripped off plenty by major labels. I would be happy to watch the whole sleazy racket fall apart.
I went back and forth on the napster issue for a while until I came to the decision that
intellectual property rights must remain protected no matter what sort of system evolves.

For now, people that take things from someone else without there permission are stealing
from them. I can't think any viable excuses for that sort of behavior.

Have a nice day, Bob[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 20 September 2000 at 12:16 PM.]

John Steele (deceased) · Post by **John Steele (deceased)** » 20 Sep 2000 11:26 am

Adam, I appreciate you taking the time to share your viewpoint, even if I tend to disagree. I (for one) wish we could talk for hours about this. It is an important and interesting issue.

Still think sales are down?

I can't say I have an opinion about that, except to say it's still irrelevant. Sorry to repeat myself, but This is what I'd like to hear you address:
Your analogy of children being given medicine suggests that musicians are not
experienced enough in the ways of the world to make sound decisions, so someone else should have the right to do it for them. Even against their wishes.
Please explain that one, 'cause I don't get it. At all.
Explain to me why musicians should be stripped of the right to decide how their work is distributed. Talk for hours, if you like

(without touching on the record sales/survey issues, if possible)
I'll listen.
Respectfully,
-John

Ingo Mamczak · Post by **Ingo Mamczak** » 20 Sep 2000 6:50 pm

If you use Napster and you make a living outside of music you are an A**hole. If you use Napster and do make a living from music you are an idiot."

Nice one B0b , and of course you don't own a v.c.r or a tape deck either .
[This message was edited by Ingo Mamczak on 20 September 2000 at 08:17 PM.]

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 20 Sep 2000 10:08 pm

Geez b0b is going have to close this thread soon, I guess (maybe he should).

I agree with Bob Hoffnar's comments, but can understand Adam's as well. My main objections to Napster (and the clones) is that the technology strips the IP ('intellectual property') rights from the music, using the justification that the IP owners rip off the real producers of the content (the artists and the writers). No argument from me that labels rip off artists, or that the system is broken, but Napster doesn't help, and in fact helps reduce the 'table scraps' that artists receive.

I still am having a hard time understanding how a musician or an artist or a songwriter benefits from the free, unapproved distribution of their work. Maybe if an artist *chooses* an internet distribution strategy for promoting their work, this might end up to be a net positive. But what about songwriters, session players, or other people who have no controll how their work is distributed. If a song is distributed on the internet royalty free, and promotes a live band's performance, that's cool. But what about the writer of the song? How is he or she going to get compensated?

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 21 Sep 2000 6:33 am

No argument from me that labels rip off artists

When you say "rip off", that is of course philosophically, since the labels have legal rights to the artists material. These rights were voluntarily signed away by the artists. And by the way, anyone who becomes an artist knows that, except for a few incredibly successful people, it is a life-time struggle. Same as all forms of music, dance, painting and sculpting, theater, movies, and TV, etc. The nature of entertainment-related businesses (sports included), for various reasons, tend to over-reward a few, and under-compensate the huge majority. In business, things are better balanced, where most employess can earn viable livings. When you go into the arts or sports, you are going into it knowing this.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » 21 Sep 2000 10:49 am

None of the musicians represented on Napster have ANY say as to how their music is distributed anyway!Once they sign on the dotted line they have NO control over the distribution process.The recorded music is payed for and owned by label and you can be darn sure they wouldn't give the artist a choice whether or not their music can be downloaded even if the labels ran their own version of Napster.The artist has little or no 'intellectual property' rights,because the revenue producing stuff belongs to the label,not the artist.
I can't explain to you why an artist should have their right to decide how their music is distributed stripped away,but THAT'S WHAT A RECORD CONTRACT IS!
I want to use sales figures as my first line of defense for Napster,because until I at least see an acorn,I just don't want to hear that the sky is falling.
I just want to add that I respect all the opinions voiced here and they are all important to me even if I don't agree with some of them.I can always count on the Forum to include a lot of intelligent insight from differing points of view.Thanks for listening folks!

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 21 Sep 2000 1:56 pm

Adam,

You are forgetting the one income source that writers get paid from standard distribution channels: Publishing mechanicals and royalties. This is
the point of the controversy. Publishing rights do get paid to musicians ! Publishing rights are the same thing as intellectual property. With Napster
the music is the same commodity as with standard major deals only this time no one gets paid at all...ever.
Believe it or not there are people on this earth that are making a living with music. Most of them are not rich and to cut off the income stream of
publishing would destroy them.

Another issue that has been avoided is that the controversy is more about the future than the present. Soon there will be no need for the sale of solid
media. We need to start our fight now to make sure we get paid for our work when it becomes a centralized download world.

I'm sure its allot of fun to get free stuff. Would any of you Napster guys object to paying a penny or 2 to the poor slobs that actually created the
music that you are currently stealing ? That is all that is being asked.

I want to hear from somebody trying to run an indie label where the sale of a few CDs can make the difference between sinking or swimming.

Bob

BTW: Spell check Napster and see what you get.

------------------
Franklin D-10
[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 21 September 2000 at 03:29 PM.]

Jim Smith · Post by **Jim Smith** » 21 Sep 2000 2:09 pm

Spell check Napster and see what you get.

Microsoft Outlook's spell checker gave me "Tapster"?!?