Napster... What is your view???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rev E
  • Start date Start date
I go against napster and what it does. I feel that in a few years time this could damage record companies as the ever increasing computer sales and awarness to napster is increased. On the one hand-yes the record companies fall, but this is to the detriment of bands trying to make it.

Bands like matallica-I couldn't care less, they have their money, it's the bands trying to make it that I feel sorry for. Yes again napster opens awarness for these bands but that does not directly put money in their pockets. Record companies will not want to take the chance as freely with profits declining and the band therefore can not develop as they would with a couple of albums and we will have lost out on not hearing the material.

I think the whole thing on napster if nothing else wakes the record companies up. It makes them aware of the fact that they have competition. What this will result in hopefully is the reduction in the cost of buying the CD's etc. This will both benefit us as consumers and also will mean bands can still recieve money-I would prefer the actual CD with it's sleeve rather than a download anyday getting at the same time the feeling that I have helped the band by providing them with money they have worked to obtain.

I do not overall think that the music should be free-it sets a general trend for other things being free and although in the short term this is to are advantage, in the long run we will have worse music (manufactured shit as it is easy to sell, promote and there is a guarantee almost to the record companies-the real bands need to develop-we could deprive them of that).
 
RevE, you asked "what's your view?" "and how everyone feels?". Those are my views and feelings.

As for giant corporations banding their armies of lawyers together to sue a seventeen year old kid, I have no sympathy. It's rather pathetic.
 
I've read the various pros and cons about Napster but don't understand one thing:
How do the owners and backers of Napster make any money? And if they are turning a profit why can't they pay royalties like everyone else? I bought the Page/Crows CD from musicmaker.com and found that a great deal-couldn't Napster do the same thing?
Rock On! with royalties to all involved!
PS.Although I am real tried of the Napster spew from Lars Upchuck
 
The "owners and backers" of Napster don't make a dime. "The Napster" is just a seventeen year old kid with a brilliant idea that has, within less than a year, incited the wrath and fury of the entire recording industry.

Classic David/Goliath.
 
Napster Hasn't Yet made money, but making money IS in the works.

Shawn Fanning, the 19-year-old kid who created it, has hired a President and other staff at Napster headquarters (read professionals who are getting PAID). The Napster company has gotten millions already from venture capital (recently $15 Million) to help with their operations. Please don't believe for one second that Napster is not planning on making money. They just haven't implemented their plan yet (probably because of these recent law suits).

Venture Capitalists wouldn't have invested $15 Million if Napster did not have a plan to eventually "Make Money".

Hixmix,
I asked for your views, mainly because I have such strong views against what I see as the threat to copyright. My views, however, strong, are in no way personal. It's just best for me to respond "directly" to what people say. All in good, heated conversation so that we can flesh this issue out.

Rev E
 
This was a pretty impressive thread - lots of people thinking about this carefully, and no flaming. A first, maybe.

The conclusion I drew from all this (I don't have an opinion about napster yet), is that it's not clear whether napster's a ripoff, or whether, like so much more technology that's come down the escalator, it can more usefully be described as inevitable.

If it's inevitable, then the question of whether it's immoral is academic. In other words, what are you going to do about it is a much more practical question.

After all, the whole notion of copyright and ownership is somewhat weird if you think about it... A song that came *through* me is somehow my possession and you have to pay for it if you want to enjoy it? Gimme a break. You don't own your own body, let alone the songs you write. However, if you can convince people (because of prevailing social attitudes and laws) that they *should* pay you money for the songs you write, that's pretty cool, I think. I'd like to do that.

But there's a new CD player from Phillips. It'll play any kind of CD, CDR, CDRW - ordinary uncompressed audio or mp3 files. One CDRW can store over 10 hours of mp3 music. One CD. Ten hours plus of recorded music. Phillips is big. With major manufacturers supplying the technology for people to store a dozen albums on one CD, I see the napster trend as inevitable.

I don't want to moan about ripoffs - I want either to figure out how I can make some money out of this. Or, if I can't make much money out of this, I want to figure out how to get my music out to as many people as want to hear it really. Or maybe I can do a bit of both.
 
I respect your views as well RevE.

When "the Napster" wrote Napster he had no idea his simple but ingenious idea would snowball into what it is today; the most rapidly adopted new technology on the Net.
When venture capitalists saw this, of course they offered up their millions. They see a potential even though it still isn't clear how the investment will be returned.

Napsters goal isn't to circumvent copyright laws and willfully rip off artists/writers/publishers. If they charged money for their service and weren't properly redistributing the money (which all the big labels have been guilty of at one time or another)in the form of royalties I would be all for shutting down Napster. But that's not the case. It is a free service that both copyright holders and consumers are benefitting from. No one is profiting monetarily.

Give Napster a chance.
 
HIXMIX hits it on the nose.Lars is just pissed cause there album sales have dropped and he has to blame something.

supper
 
HIXMIX hits it on the nose.Lars is just pissed cause there album sales have dropped and he has to blame something.

supper
 
Hixmix and others on the list,

So far, I've enjoyed this conversation about a subject that will make a big impact in the present and future lives of musicians and songwriters. The back-and-forth has been fun. I think that so far, we've had a great combination of the far right (It's-cleary-wrong-and-will-come-around-to-bite-us-in-the-butt-crowd: ME!) to the fence-sitters (I-know-it's-wrong-but-it-has-a-lot-of-promise crowd: Cliff & Hixmix-to a degree) to the Could-care-less (I-hate-the-major-labels-Lars-can-just-shove-it-Napster-forever crowd: Old Grover & Hixmix-to a degree).

I've had fun so far and hope that we can continue to get to the heart-of-the-matter with this issue. I have a lot of high regard for the views of all of the posters so far, even the one's that I disagree with. I have a lot of fun putting "reality" into an issue and finding out where everyone's mind is really at. Keep posting!

Rev E

[This message has been edited by Rev E (edited 07-20-2000).]
 
RevE-

Let me clarify your above statement.

I don't "know it's wrong".

And I don't "hate the major labels". I just don't take all their chest banging at face value. As with any monopolistic consolidation of power, I question their real motives. I could say I "hate" Lars because he so readily championed and sided with the majors' attempts to blacklist innocent listeners, many of them his own fans. He appears to be just another one of their ball-less puppets. He would do well to open his mind a little. There's alot more than meets the eye here.

hxmx
 
I now am in a position and age that I can afford to buy the music I want and don't have the time or inclination to download music for pay or free. When I was in high school and college we would record radio shows like King Bisquit and sometimes they would play whole new releases on the radio. We would also occasionally sneak a small cassette player into a concert and get a cherished but bad sounding recording. Does this equate with Napster and current youth's aquisitioning of music? Is it morally worse because the sound quality is better? Do I owe royalties for the shitty sounding cassettes I taped?
Remember Lars Fuckup is a drummer and is taking the year off to run for office!
 
Hixmix,

It matters little what the motives of the major labels are in this matter. Even if it's purely for the money, which they have no intention to share with the artists, it's of little relevance. When you can get 20 million users to do something in less than a year and a half (I repeat 20 million or almost 10% of the population), their behavior does become a significant event. Get any 20 million people to do anything.... vote, stop paying taxes, boycott Proctor & Gamble, stop watching TV, etc... and everyone will take notice.

Now, superimpose the idea that those 20 million people are doing something that the law clearly forbids and you have more than a passing fad, you have a behavior that could literally erode everything that we hold dear. That's what this situation is about. Regardless of the labels and their obvious desire for control, power and greed and you have a situation where an ill-thought but novel technology could potentially erode all of what CopyRIGHT ownership stood for.

Even if the actions of web-ites changed how labels practices by giving consumers what they really want (instant access to all of their titles, cheaper music, etc), it's hard to beat free... even with "cheap". Trading bad cassette tapes with high-school buddies is one thing. But inviting 20 million (and growing) strangers to participate in something illegal is another thing entirely.

Rev E

[This message has been edited by Rev E (edited 07-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Rev E (edited 07-21-2000).]
 
Hmm. Interesting - I guess I do hate the major labels, but I certainly don't hate the musicians behind them. However, I do think that regardless of what people WANT, the fact is that information - including music - is now much easier and faster to move around the world. I think it is time to ACCEPT that, ACCEPT the world that is Napster and Gnuetella and FreeNet and the whole Internet thing and look at a different way of dealing with copyright and ownership issues. YES, musicians and artists have the right to be compensated for their work. What I do think, though, is that compensation will have to come a different way then it is now. You can't put the genie back in the bottle - effectively instantaneous transmission of music and other information is here. We have to work within this new world to figure out how to make money.

My big problem with the RIAA and the MPAA is that their solutions to this new world is to go restrictive - encryption, paranoia and laws, laws, laws. Encryption doesn't work to protect against the real pirates (witness the DVD thing), just makes the FAIR-USE provisions of copyright a thing of the past, which isn't good for anyone. Laws need teeth to be effective, which leads to an escalation in the whole arms race thing.

I think we need to step back and LOOK at this and see how we can prosper.

As an aside, I should probably mention my background here. Unlike most of you, I'm not a real musician. I'm a computer geek. But, my fiancee is a Real Musician (tm), so I certainly have an interest that way. And I'm her recording/technical person, so I have an interest that way too. But I figured I ought to mention it up front.

As an aside, the Register (a UK online computer rag - often accurate, always baiting) has an article on a recent survey which claims to show record sales have gone up because of Napster. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12093.html
 
Old Grover and others,

In response to your recommendation of the music industry needing to "ACCEPT" that the world of Napster and the rest are here, I think that, At THe SAme TIme, Napster and all of the other online download sites have to accept that regardless of what there software can do you don't go picking from someone's field without their permission and some form of payment. So I think that your comment is well said, but needs to be balanced (both sides have to accept these facts).

Here's a quote from one of the articles on The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/10983.html (thanks for the link, great articles). This quote really hits the nail on the head on how Napster could possibly get out of trouble. But this will only come after they FIrst ACCept that they're contributing to the infringement of someone's copyright(they probably know that already and are just playing the waiting game to see where the case is going to take them, before deciding to settle).

"Napster will ultimately have to settle out of court - or risk face anihilating damages - and modify its service to allow it to develop into what it really is: the FM radio of the 21st Century. In a business that relies on selling product on the back of samples - albums sold by promoting singles; CDs sold on the back of radio airplay - the major music labels have a lot to gain from getting Napster on their side. And, as per radio, that means putting up with the possibility that some users won't buy albums, they'll simply copy them.........

.......If the music industry can come to a deal with Napster, it will gain one of its most powerful marketing tools, and that's probably what the RIAA lawsuit (but not the Metallica one) is about: getting Napster to the point where the industry can make it do what the industry wants. That's unlikely to diminish Napster's userbase, and add in the prospect of selling ads to a very tight demographic, and the future for Napster suddenly looks very rosy indeed."

My sentiments mostly. You gotta "pay to play"! Anything less would be "uncivilized" (in best English aristocrat accent)!

Rev E
 
Yes, exactly. They've got to work together, but my feelings are that RIAA is more interested in attempting to maintain the status quo (which simply does not work) then in actually figuring out how to make new technology work for them. This Napster thing forces it, but still begs the question what is going to happen when someone comes up with a technology that completely is peer-to-peer (Gnutella comes close)...

Then you're faced with dealing with each individual again, or putting ISPs in the position of having to police their networks - which isn't appropriate - you don't make phone companies guarrantee that there are no drug deals going on their lines, nor should you.

Anyways, I should appologize for the long postings.. this thread is getting long and it is my fault :)
 
Roland,

I beg to differ.

You wrote: "I strain to see the root fear that is behind this witch-hunt. It isn't the starving artist, or intellectual property, because the big record industry does give %$#@^ # 1 about either one of them, I tell you that straight up."


The witchhunt is about control. That's the reason. It's never been about the labels "starving". Who told you that? Labels DO care about intellectual property. That IS their business... If you truly understand the game, you'll realize that the most money is made from the "control" of a copyright. Artists focus on the "here and now", but the long run is what labels focus on.

In order to survive, they have to "control" access to their copyrights... "control" supply of their product so that it has value in the future. If they let this fight so as a passing fad, they will risk losing the game in the long run. Now copyrights, tomorrow the world.

Sure, CD's are pricey, once you know how much it costs to simply manufacture it. But, manufacturing costs have never been the determining factor for something's cost. Add in Artist Advances, Marketing & Promotional Costs, Production Costs, the rapidly-increasing costs of Music Videos, Touring costs, Producer fees, plus the fact that 80% of CD's "lose money" , and you'll see why CD's cost as much.

So much has been said about the cost of music. It IS a BUsiness! Businesses have the right to set the price as they please to cover costs and make a profit... No one seems to complain about Nike and their profit margins (off the backs of Asian sweatshops) or Video games ($40+ for the same CD "disc"). Do you know what P&G's profit margin is for their products? Gas? Computers? Your local studio? Any other businesses? Once you do, you'll realize that the music business is what it has always been... A business, first and last.

Rev E
 
Sorry Monty, this is a little gassy, but "I read the news today oh boy"

I think we're all agreed that this method of re-distribution is "technically" theft of intellectual material. Legally, Napster is wrong. Legally, you go to jail for ten years for a smoking a joint, but if you rob a bank, you can be out in three.
It also seems to be proven that the recording industry as a whole is making huge profits these days, napster or no napster.
We may be agreed that the non-paying public will always be deadbeats, no matter what medium they exploit.

I strain to see the root fear that is behind this witch-hunt.
It isn't the starving artist, or intellectual property, because the big record industry does give sh*t # 1 about either one of them, I tell you that straight up.

I SUSPECT that the only people that will ever really suffer from widespread home-level redistribution technology are the people that charge you $20 for a 25 cent disc. I further suspect that Metallica has a piece of the publishing pie, so NOW they have done a 180 and are "worried about intellectual property". I believe they lie, and are just greedy.
Hey I could be wrong, but this is the free world and I thank the gods for my freedom to express my view politely.

This I know to be my own personal truth:
I will never buy another single goddamn song from any band that takes it this far.
Are you not sick of millionaires calling you a thief?
Are you not sick of Big Music telling you that you're ripping them off?
Hey Metallica, last time I looked, "Whiskey
in the Jar " was written centuries ago.
Didn't see you turn that one down, ya wankers.
I wonder if the anti-napster crusader bands have counted the people like myself, who will now actively survey their activites, and go out of the way to avoid buying anything they write, publish, sing, or associate with . With a million guys like me now NOT buying anything because the industry sucks too much, profits should skyrocket, yes? :'-~

I hate rich entities who hide their greed behind a veil of justice.

"I told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on, and so on....."
 
Roland...no need to apologize to me.

James Hetfield admitted on TV that it is about the money. I saw it and heard it. There is the "music business", and there is "music". One is business and one is art. The appreciation of art has, for the most part, always been free. When I hear art I appreciate, I may just run out and buy it. If I never hear it, then the business end of the endeavor ceases to exist. The business people shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them, or they may end up having to tighten their belts. They should stay true to their medieval form and look for real witches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top