The Dark Side Of Napster

Julian Morrison writes, "An article on Salon shows the dark side of Napster (and implicitly, Gnutella and all the other clones). Artists say they can't make money from t-shirts and touring, and if sales of their CD drop on the auto-indexer, the label says goodbye. Can anyone come up with a distribution model that will work with the new tech rather than being swamped by it? " Also check out the recent Suck article about the "Zapster". Pretty funny.

Yep, I've bought more CD's after trying out an MP3

I don't know about overall, but I can say that I have bought more CD's in the recent past because I came across an MP3 from an artist I'd never heard of, or was given an MP3 by a friend that was by an artist I probably wouldn't have thought to check out otherwise.

Nobody wants to blow $18 on a CD that they think they might like. I sure as hell don't. And sure, the 10 second teasers that CDNow supplies (Sometimes) are okay, but not enough for me to make an educated decision on.

At the risk of repeating what's already been said, MP3's simply don't cut it all of the time. I have to have that physical media in my hand that I can carry around and have a case for.

Re:Artists surviving in the new media

Yes this works for a few bands. But most of the bands out there are *NOT* the Greatful Dead and do not have and never will have as large a faitfull following.

The truth of the matter is that it takes money to make music and that money has to come from somewhere, unless we want to go back to the time when the only music was what kings and princes felt like paying for.

The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.

Interview with John Perry Barlow?

I couldn't recognize a Grateful Dead myself but I know that they allowed people to tape their concerts.

And John Perry Barlow, who wrote some of their texts, was a founder of EFF, wasn't he?

What about a Slashdot interview with John Perry Barlow or other members of Grateful Dead? I think their view on this issue (and other Slashdotic things) would be very insightful.
--

Lose-Lose Situation

Although Napster is the largest distribution method, it certainly isn't the only one. It would be impossible for any artist to control their commercialized music on Usenet, IRC, FTP, HTTP, and others. Hell, someone had to buy their CD if the music is being distributed in the first place (I'm sure that if an artist only sold a single CD their label wouldn't be terribly impressed mind you).

I'm personally willing to support artists by purchasing individual songs online, but the question still remains of why I would buy water when I can get it free from my tap. Less than 10% of the price of a CD goes to the artists anyhow, and I'm just not willing to support the industry anymore (though I really do like quality music and would like the artists to continue making good music, unlike the garbage at mp3.com).

It's a catch 22. There's no winning for anyone here, including the consumer.

EraseMe

Re:Classical anyone?

Classical and experimental musics are already largely poised to thrive in the new environment. I agree with posters who say that the technology is much too ubiquitous to treat this as a moral problem any more: it is now virtually impossible to treat recorded music as a discrete commodity for those who are in the world of MP3s. The attempt to map the laws of physical property into this domain are futile.

Classical composition and, largely, performance, are not funded by the sale of commodities. There are royalties for performance, but CD sales are usually too low to sustain new work. Instead, many composers are academics, or are funded by public and private grants. There's thus less accountability to mass taste and a more sophisticated aesthetic discourse.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is, of course, dependent on who you are. If you are making money as a manufacturer and producer of pop-music objects for retail sale, you of course hate the rarified model of grants, patronage and peer review. You got rich from mass appeal, not from critical appeal.

This is unabashedly elitist, even as it democratizes access to music.

However, it should be recalled that the technologies of music distribution created pop music as we know it - before the era of the mechanical reproduction of sound, most popular music was sold as sheet music which was performed - for very little recompense - by local musicians. Technology giveth, and technology taketh away.

Sounds like hooey to me . . .

If they'd said that if their record sales fell off the record company wouldn't subsidize the tour, I could believe that.

But I've met and spoken with some of my favorite full time musicians, people who have been playing their music for their livelihood for over a decade. And what they told me wasn't different from what I'd heard about all but the most popular recording artists.

If it weren't for the touring and live shows, they'd go hungry. Literally, if it wasn't for their cut of the door, and the tshirt sales, and the poster sales, and the substantially thicker margins of CDs sold at the show, they would not have money for food.

Just as i have to get up in the morning and go be an admin, they have to get up in the afternoon and go please the fans on stage.

Nobody hates the record company more than the average recording artist. You pay, what, $15 for that cd. The band gets less than a dollar of that. And the cost of manufacturing the cd comes out of the band's cut. When i's all said and done, they're getting a piddling sum of money for it. They'd probably make twice as much money paying for duplication up front and selling them direct for $1 each.

But they can't. There's a little problem of contract law, and only the record company has the right to distribute the albums. Yes, believe it or not, most of your favorite songs will probably be making the RIAA money until 70 years after the artist dies. This is what they call "standard industry practice"

Re:Lose-Lose Situation

Hmmm....is it really your decision on who gets the money? The Artist signed the contract with the Label. This is a decision between the artist and those he chose to go into business with, not your and your moral conciousness.

I don't like record labels anymore more than the next guy, but it is a viable method of distribution and lot of my friends go this method. They know the risks before going in. Musicians are not as fucking stoopid as people make them out to be. They also know that few (practically none...can probably count them on one hand) are getting any kind of money from the MP3 distribution methods.

Its like the Steven King (ick...) eBook success...geeks are now going to tout that as a reason that all books can be eBooks and make a profit when the real reason it sold was it was King and nothin' more.

So before others start talking about how not giving the money to the artist, remember how ya got to know the artist. And if you are realy that concerned, start a label yourself and don't be the assholes that you think these other companies are. I know a few that have started their own labels for this very reason...simply to own their own recording and to profit share with any other artist that they pick up.

blah

clif

Shortsighted Artists

It seems that all many of these artists can see is that people are copying their music and they aren't getting paid for it. While true, it isn't that simple.

Like warez kiddies, many napster users are young people, without a lot of money, who would never have bought the official product anyway, so they aren't a loss to the artist.

Many people buy the CD after they hear MP3s from the CD and decide they like the artist's music. They have money to spend, but they aren't going to walk into a music store and spend money on a bunch of random CDs from unknown artists.

Radio used to be an important medium for exposing the public to an artist's music. Today, it is difficult to find a radio station that plays a wide variety of music. Most have rigid and short playlists based on some consultant's version of "make money fast in radio". There is a lot of excellent music that never gets airplay.

Slavery, Oh That's Rich.

That's like saying "Slaves need some some way to eat. Even if their master only gives them a piece of bread a day, it's better than nothing. By freeing slaves, you're doing nothing to help them eat. While the system may be 'unfair', that does not make the concept of owning slaves null and void. It exists for a reason, so just accept it."

No, it is nothing like slavery. Slaves do not have a choice in the matter. All artists do have a choice, even if they sign stupid contracts, sell the rights, or what have you. The fact of the matter is that artists still choose to sign with the top labels of their own freewill, despite the presence of "indy" this and "indy" that. They still find it more advantageous to get "raped" (as you would put it) by industry, then go it alone. Put simly, this means that the labels are offering the artist something of greater value (e.g., promotion, marketing, distribution, mixing, etc.), even if you personally (as a consumer) don't appreciate or benefit from it.

The word is 'intellectual property' for a reason. Once you have it, it's yours, like more tangible property. Amongst these rights, is the right to sell it. If you don't recognize the right of the artist to transfer full ownership (including the right to price it however they want), then you're denying the artists' rights.

Re:Artists surviving in the new media

> Bands such as Phish and the Grateful Dead have always made a substantial amount of their income from touring and live performance, rather than selling studio material.

Indeed, until the music business hit escape velocity sometime around 1971, virtually every musician in history made his/her living by staying on the road to play, play, play. I suspect Elvis and a few others were early exceptions, but even some of the "rich" rock bands from the late '60s burned themselves out by living in buses and playing seven nights a week.

Even today (or the day before Napster was invented) the overwhelming majority of musicians make ends meet by playing as often as possible and selling their tapes/CDs on a table out front. Assuming they did make ends meet: most I have ever known actually had to work a day job.

I do happen to believe in the concept of intellectual property as applied to music and literature (as opposed to patents), but unfortunately for musicians, being a millionare at 20 isn't an entitlement, and never was. So though I encourage consumers not to steal, I also encourage artists to come up with a new business plan. The old one only ever worked for the tiniest fraction of all musicians, and those not necessarily the most talented; and even that limping system doesn't look like it's going to work anymore.

--

Re:How will the artists survive?

You can try to make a living making music. You just don't have a guarantee that you will succeed. Once recorded, your song has no value, because it costs nothing to reproduce it. The current system assigns value to your recording by making laws that restrict reproduction. What you are asking for is to create something with no monetary value and to receive monetary compensation for doing it. That's just plain broken.

No-one should make music for money. If they get money, that's good, but if not getting money is going to stop you performing, you should probably stop anyway.

No pity -- Capitalism works, but it's harsh

The music industry had a decade or more in which they knew this was coming. Hell, in the 80's people started handing around hand-tooled MIDI files on BBSs. And, what did they do? The industry has spent millions of dollars on opposing any sort of on-line music, and the only overtures that they made treated every consumer like a suspect in the worlds largest petty theft.

If they had really pushed since the founding of the Internet, they could have molded online music into a massive profit center, but they stuck their fingers in their ears and tried real hard to believe that the Internet fad would pass.

Well, now they get to lie in that bed, and to quote far too many people, a little revolution can be a good thing. In 20 years, we will likely not recognize the music industry on planet earth. I suspect that the real product will be bandwidth, and songs will not be sold without video. "Pirating" is already the new radio, and as music companies realize this, they may seek to find ways to advertize through the distribution channels of "pirated" music. This will mean a consolidation and commercialization of those services and technologies.

Actually, it sounds like a damn good time to be getting into the online music industry. But, you have to choose your competitors carefully. Companies like MP3.com seem very avant garde to the music industry, but may not be radical enough to end up on top. Remember the early days of the net when first FTP software and then Netscape seemed poised to take the most advantage of software sales to consumer use of the Internet?

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from artists because they are used to the status quo. Ignore the fact that the status quo has lead to one of the most abusive producer/distributor/consumer relationships in history. The artists feel that they have stability. So, as instability sets in, the ones that do this because they think they can make the system work for them will say that they are being hurt by the "pirates".

The artists and small publishers who push the envelope and take a risk will profit. It may come in the form of creating a new music format that includes graphical or textual information about tour dates. I just don't know what will happen, but I know that artistic creativity will always be a valuable commodity, and artists may not be able to profit as much from the music industry, but they will certainly have the public's ear and thus a door do their wallets for a long time to come.

The coming critical junction

The problem with Napster is not Napster. Too many people, corporations, and governments get tied up on the tools of Internet copyright abuse and lose sight of the fundamental shift in the way information and ideas are represented. In the past, the media that the idea was contained on (paper, CD, airwave, etc) was as valuable as the idea itself since the media is what made the idea tangible and controllable. Suddenly, with the advent of Napster type tools and the coming onset of faster computers and faster connections, ideas are set free from the constrains of their associated media and can be anywhere on demand.

It is wholly unimportant in the long run what profit model is chosen to represent audio, video, or any other information idea that we have traditionally paid for. Unless the tools are outlawed, it is only a matter of time before anyone will be able to duplicate and transfer any idea to anyone, anytime. The media industries will lose money and (whether they deserve it or not) will take losses. Eventually this will lead to a degradation of quality of information being created. (if you don't feed the hand that is feeding you, you will not get fed!)

Economics would suggest that the benefit of free ideas would eventually be outweighed by the cost of the worthless ideas created from the free idea model. As demand for quality media rises, eventually society will reach a critical juncture -- continue the current morality (acceptance of costless information duplication and transfer) or adopt some new morality that allows for the creation of quality media.

In "short" run, there is no way that I see a profitable future for certain information based industries -- music especially, since it's products are so completely pre-packaged prevalent in our lives. Sound quality will improve with better algorithms, distribution and accessibility issues will cease to be a problem as faster networks and the wireless convergence occurs, copyright controls will either be hacked or worked around, and prevalence will increase rapidly as the technology to duplicate and transfer information becomes easier to use for the common man and more widespreadly available. Until we reach that critical juncture, I don't think that either the label nor the artist has much going for them.

This issue cuts both ways

As far as the piracy issue goes, the bottom line is that anywhere copyrights are acknowledged, pirated music is illegal. And in case anyone thinks I'm dancing around the issue, it is immoral as well. As far as I'm concerned, copyrighted performances of music are the intellectual property of the performer, to be sold or given away as the performer desires.

Napster is being used heavily, and probably primarily, as a tool to facilitate music piracy. And there are factions that want it banned. But it is the piracy that is wrong, not the tool. There are people using it legitimately, or who will soon. MP3's can serve as a promotional tool for new bands. They can be a way to put a recording of a school concert on the web for proud parents when pressing CDs would be too expensive. I could sit here dreaming up uses for them.

And if Napster is banned, if the MP3 format is banned, piracy will go deeper underground, but it will not go away. That bottle has spilled its genie. It will have two other effects. The people with legitimate uses for the technology will be denied access to it. And it will set another precedent of banning software, a worse one than DeCSS.

Richard Stallman wrote a cautionary story about some possible consequences of this road once we start down it entitled The Right to Read [gnu.org]. I don't think it will get as bad as he described, but imagine the consequences of some of the measures that he mentioned. Imagine programmers only having access to debuggers and other programming tools if they are licensed and bonded. Free software would not be what it is today.

I have seen in various places comments that locks and contracts show us the history of the struggle between people trying to secure their property and thieves trying to take it. Rather than seeking a new technological advance or a new model for marketting music, the recording industry and many musicians are clinging to the model they have. The law is with them, and they are in the right (in general, I'm not discussing detailed cases here) morally. That won't save them without a draconian police state.

They do not have the right to impose additional obligations on me in situations that do not involve their intellectual property. Whether they like it or not the technological tide will roll in. Institutions that do not change become obsolete.

Re:Artists surviving in the new media

Yes this works for a few bands. But most of the bands out there are *NOT* the Greatful Dead and do not have and never will have as large a faitfull following.

The Grateful Dead certainly earned that following. They toured constantly and really gave their fans a lot more than just some CD's and a couple videos on MTV. Honestly though, I think the recording industry, in its current state, prefers bands that they can sell in a box. I don't think we'll see any more bands like the Dead coming from members of the RIAA. When I say "like the Dead" I'm refering to their consistant dedication to their music and fans, not the type of music.

The truth of the matter is that it takes money to make music and that money has to come from somewhere, unless we want to go back to the time when the only music was what kings and princes felt like paying for.

In effect this is what's been happening. Most people only get to hear what the record companies feel like paying for. And they only feel like paying for what will make them more money than they spend. Of course, this is not the "only music" now, nor was it then.

The artists that 'survive in the new media' will be a lot more like the Dead and a lot less than the crap the music cartel is pushing on us today.

numb

Artists surviving in the new media

Bands such as Phish and the Grateful Dead have always made a substantial amount of their income from touring and live performance, rather than selling studio material. Instead, they encouraged the free exchange of live recorded concert material, and in response fans flocked to see them perform. This may just change the profit model of running a band. The big dollars may shift from expensive cd's and a wide range of concert prices to cheap cd/mp3's and expensive live performances. Whether or not this is a bad thing is anyone's guess. I for one, will shed no tears at the demise of an industry that still charges 18$ for a cd that costs maybe 50 cents to make. How much does an artist get from that 18$ anyway?

Re:Yes, and No.....

"Artists should get paid for their work." -- Aimee Mann

This, I think, is the core of the matter. It's also interesting that this is not, by and large, what the labels are saying. They're talking mainly about "artists' rights", while the artists figure they worked hard, and really ought to get paid, thank you.

So, I'll lay out the idea below again. I've run it through various discussion forums at mp3.com a couple of times, and nobody really noticed. I thought it was simple and straight-forward, but maybe it really is revolutionary...

First - you can't digitally protect music. If you encrypt it, then you have to decrypt it to use it, and unless you're using secure hardware, that protection won't last long. [see deCSS] You also can't use watermarks for that reason - if someone can identify the watermark, then they can remove it. You can identify music using watermarks, but only to determine that piracy and illegal distribution has taken place. You can't actually distribute the watermark check (see above). And if all else fails, someone will just digitize an analog copy.

It's beginning to look like it's digitally hopeless to try and protect music, until you realize that's not the goal. You just want to pay the piper. Literally.

Everyone's worrying about music distribution, but as MyMp3 and Napster show, the distribution problem is solved. We're just waiting on a little more bandwidth and disk space, and it will be solved for everybody forever. The distribution cost will be so low, that you would pay more to control the distribution than you would to actually distribute the content.

So, rather than worry about a solved problem, how can we pay the musician? The other time-honoured method of paying for music is pay-for-performance. This could be like a penny-an-hour radio station, but this ignores portable MP3 players and large hard drives. Last time I checked, I can't connect anywhere while I'm riding the subway.

The next step in the thought process is to let you store the music, but whenever possible, the player notifies ... well, it notifies someone of this selection. Ah, yeah, right. I don't want to think at all about the privacy aspects of that model. [see RealAudio]

The final ah-ha is realizing that I don't need to charge for all performances, or even most performances. I just need a good-enough sample of how often the music is selected. This, it turns out is easy.

First, you embed additional information in MP3 files - you can do this today without breaking existing MP3 players. [see MP3,ID3v2 [id3.org]] We can squeeze in about 64K for the equivalent of about 4 seconds of audio - in other words, it's really inexpensive. In this 64K, you get about 3 or 4 sets of information. Each set is for one entity - the artist, the label, and (critically) one or more for sponsors. Each set has (a) a big banner advert, (b) a tiny banner advert, (c) a 16x32 black and white logo, (d) a name (ascii), and (e) a special URL.

Now, crank up that compiler, and go back to your open source MP3 player. When you encounter this block of data, display the appropriate chunk from the section. Try for the big banner, or just use the small one. Portable players with a graphic screen can go for the 16x32, and the really simple portable players will go with scrolling the name. Then cycle through each set, moving forward about once every 20 seconds. Finally - if someone selects the banner, logo, or name (by clicking - or whatever) then launch that special URL. Notice that the selection is clearly a user action - nothing happens unless the listener does something.

The URL is very special. It uniquely identifies the advert, and also uniquely identifies the tune. It could uniquely identify the original download as well, but that's up to the distributor. Before launch, the player will add the X and Y address of the click on a banner, and a hash code (with salt) of the following few seconds of music.

The server that receives the URL will redirect the user to something appropriate - artist, label, or sponsor - to what was clicked. If it is a sponsor, it records the click-through. But as it does the redirect, it notes the tune that it came from. That's all for the core technical stuff. The server itself would sensibly be the label's, but there's no concrete requirement for that.

Now look at the information stream you're getting. The number of click-throughs is going to depend on both how widely the file is distributed and how often it is listened to. These are the core attributes we want to measure for music popularity. In addition, since sponsors get a click-through, the artist and label can share a click-through revenue stream and an impression stream. As a final note, if you let the URL identify the specific download, then you can get loyalty points for downloading and distributing tunes to your friends.

So, did we achieve what we were after? I think so (but then, I'm biased). We have:

• a benefit from hyper-distribution (or "Napster is our friend")
• measures of performance, not just distribution
• revenue sources for the artists and labels

Conveniently, this is completely compatible with streaming MP3, so netradio works immediately and automatically generates the artists revenue stream. I don't think there will be a lot of pressure from artists and labels to penalize (or even regulate) netradio if it is going to automatically generate income.

Yes, you could strip out the information and pass on the file. But this has relatively little effect. With legitimate hyper-distribution it becomes very difficult for a pirate to get their works out to a lot of people.

Most conveniently, this is completely backward compatible with MP3. Artists could start adding sponsor info to downloaded MP3 tomorrow, and it won't affect properly built players. Once a large enough base of tunes exists, players can be reasonably expected to support the option. As a final nice touch, this can even move into the physical world, by including pre-encoded MP3s on the end of each CD, ready to move to the PC, stereo, or portable player.

So - final question. Would this model help solve some of the difficulties we're having here?

disappointing

It's surprising that Salon would publish an article that could've come straight from the pages of a RIAA press release or music trade mag. Using a record exec as the spokesperson for the starving artists doesn't quite help the piece's credibility. Some artists' comments are spliced in for good measure, sure, but the author (an editor at Rolling Stone, which to the music establishment is what the WSJ is to the business world) apparently couldn't find any well-known, big-selling names to support his argument. The article also chooses to almost completely ignore those artists who support the MP3 phenomenon, mentioning proven, publically-acclaimed performers such as Chuck D only in passing, and instead devoting the best of three pages to quoting middling record execs and their unsuccessful acts.

Unfortunately for the Rolling Stone hack and his corporate backers, the initiative backfires, since even a mildly critically minded person can see right through the bullshit of statements such as "We send them to Napster and they see all their work being given away for free, and they're stunned and horrified." The artist as a weak puppet in the hands of the omniscient record exec who always looks out for his proteges' best interests? I don't buy it. If your music is good and I dig your stuff, however, I will go out and buy the album, if for no other reason than finding entire, properly ripped albums on Napster is next to impossible, unless your searches consume most of your waking time.

Missing some important factors here---

Phish and the dead are anomolies and have no business in this discussion. Phish in no small way inherited the Dead's legacy and audience, a following which has its roots in one, specific historical moment. Therefore, to say that any artist could do the same thing is not quite correct.

The thrust of the article was not to indict record companies for overcharging for CD's (they do (duh)), or to showcase artists complaining that they're underpaid by the record companies, but to make this very important point--

To cast the Napster debate as a free-speech issue is misleading and beside the point, like making the right to shoot someone a second-amendment issue.

Artists (and unfortunately their labels) own what they produce-- that's why we have copyright laws. Napster is, as cool as it is (I love it), it is nevertheless pretty much illegal, and unless you are talking about Phish, or Britney, or some other artist who no longer has to live in a van and shower in bus stations while on tour, Napster screws musicians right in the ol' cornhole.

YES, it's true that the distro structure of the music industry needs to change.
YES it's true that record companies pocket most of the $18 sticker price for CD's.
YES it's true that it's much more fun to get music for free on a large scale. That's why tape trading is such big business for Dead- and Phish-heads, fans of Medeski Martin & Wood, Zappa, etc.

However, avoiding the traditional distro and payment structure entirely hurts artists who are not yet top-shelf successful.

Copyrighted music is a commodity just like anything else, and the producers deserve compensation. I'd think that lots of people on Slashdot, being overworked and underpaid IT folks, can definitely sympathize with this situation. The open-source metaphor only allies ot music int he public domain. It not yet apply to copyrighted musicans unless they want it to.

I apologize for coming off so strident, but I'm one of the very-lowest-echelon struggling-musician-types, and I'll be damned if I'm giving away all the rights to my music for free.

---

It's not that simple, I don't think

You are the victim. RIAA is also the victim. So are the artists.

Everyone's the victim *and* the antagonist(sp).

It is, of course, a question of morality. Who is wrong and who is right?

You mention the price of CD's but you are not buying CD's, you are buying music. Music that takes time and talent and money to produce and distribute.

Now I am not against Napster. I am against illegal copying (the word piracy isn't right, now is it?). Napster isn't at fault, it is simply a medium that human beings make the decision how to use. Not to you specifically, Palin, but anyone who wishes to answer: How have you decided to use Napster? Have you become the victim *and* the antagonist?

I am not someone who beleives in the law for the law's sake. But I know why we have law: to stop anarchy. You see, we don't pick and choose which laws we will follow because then we have undermined the purpose of law. If you think a law is unfair and unjust then, at least in my country, there are methods to challenge the law. This is why I am against illegal copying.

If you beleive that you are the greater victim then find the groups who beleive the same as you do. Boycott the industry seems to be the valid method of protest but that is the precise opposite of illegal copying, isn't it?

There are two methods of going about the issue: either you can formally protest or you can copy illegally and *then* justify your actions. If the later then you should at least acknowledge that no one has any God-born or natural right to gratis music. Either you want to pay fairly or you don't get the music.

The RIAA has caused nothing to happen. The only thing that has changed is that with Napster it becomes easier to copy music. Napster does a poor job of keeping honest people honest. People don't copy music illegally out of protest. Protest means boycott. No, people copy music illegaly because it is easy.

One of the worst traits of human morality is that people have hard time controlling their own actions.

(I should put this kind of disclaimer in my .sig:

The ideas in this post are my opinion only. No one said that I had to agree with you or that you had to agree with me. I will agree or disagree politely to you. I expect the same in return.

Thank you)

Where's my money? GIVE ME MY MONEY!

I like the quote right at the beginning of the article ``Artists should get paid for their work''. If that's so, then I have a lot of canned human feces I HAD BETTER GET PAID FOR. I call it art and I want my money! (Heh, one of the nicest things about shit is that there's an endless supply of it, if I get desperate enough I can use the RIAA website as a source for more.)

Too Late For Distribution Model

Yes. It's called "give us a way to pay for individual songs, and download them in the format of our choice

What is sad is that this may have been true before but the chances of this happening now that people have gotten used to being able to download music quicly, easily and for free on Napster are rather slim. People will keep using Napser, there's no way this is going to change without the disappearance of Napster and its clones or at least a fundamental change in the way they behave. Reasons why it's too late

No website distribution model will be faster easier or cheaper than Napster. So why should people switch to downloading music from several websites or officially sanctioned MP3 servers when they can just use Napster to get all the music they need.

Napster allows access to all sorts of music for free. Do not underestimate the power of free stuff. Most of my friends have stopped buying CDs and while I still buy them (I have over 150) I do it more from a guilty conscience (and because I can afford to) than due to any real need. And even then, if I ever find an affordable car MP3 player I doubt that I'll ever buy a CD again. I have seen this same sentiment echoed by journalist for magazines as prestigous as Fortune and Forbes when describing the new threat to the music industry.

Microcharging for individual songs only means that the record companies and artists get even less money. Now instead of 1 person buying a $16.00 CD or $5.00 single and making it available on the Net for Free, the song would have cost $0.50 or $1.00 and would still be available on the Net for free.

Napster and its clones have rocked the foundations of the music industry. MP3s may have begun the funeral dirge but it is Napster that began the nailing of the coffin shut. The reason the RIAA is so up in arms about Napster is because they also have realized the above points and know there is no viable distribution model that would not seriously reduce their income (Frankly I wouldn't mind if the Backstreet Boys & Britney Spears weren't millionaires). The only way they can defend what they feel is their right to selling overpriced music will be to lobby for legislation. Everything else they do is at best a holding action, while they keep trying to get more of our rights stolen...(maybe a proposed ban on CD burners or a music tax on them for all the music that will get stolen is in the works).

It's the RIAA's own fault.

Napster is by no means anything "new". It's just popular at the moment. There have been other file-sharing systems in place for far, far longer than Napster has, such as IRC, the web, and ftp servers. The 3 terabytes of music you see listed on Napster when you log in is _nothing_ compared to the total volume of music available out there via other formats.

The only difference with Napster is that there is now a company behind. A perfect target the RIAA to file suit against. Which, ironically, only serves to fuel Napster's popularity. RIAA says "Napster lets you download pirated music for free! It's bad!" Your average college student would probably stop listening at "free".

Then there's the real blunder that the RIAA made. RIAA launched an all out war against the MP3 format. Not the software that makes it, not the people who use it, the format itself. And in so doing, they doomed any chance they had to use it, or for that matter any other compressed media format, for distribution. Why? Because adopting such a format would be the highest form of hypocrisy. While shouting down from the heavens and condemning the online distribution of music, they'd be asking their artists to use the same formats to distribute the music.

And you wonder why you've never seen more than fluff and hype about the RIAA's SDMI initiative?

The RIAA had a chance to capitalize on the MP3 movement. Instead, they did the last thing they should've done. Look at what the my.mp3.com service is offering now! The RIAA could have _easily_ offered up such a service, with the support of the artists. And by adding the ability to buy a new album online relatively inexpensively, you've just made a service that people will not only want, but one people will _use_.

The RIAA's only goal here is to stave off their current business model. They missed the proverbial boat when they slammed down on the mp3 format. Now they're trying to do too little, too late.

The problems that have led up to the current MP3 "scene" are pretty obvious when you stop to look at them. People have access to both the blank media and the neccesary hardware to imprint on said media. You can pick up a CD-RW drive for under 200 bucks now, if you're willing to get an older, slower model. Blank CD-Rs, the same material used in commercial CDs, sell for less than 50 cents each in bulk quantities of 500 or more. I think the RIAA would probably manage to get bulk rates that are even lower, wouldn't you?

Yet commercial CDs sell for between 10 to 20 dollars. What exactly is it that we're paying for with that 2000% to 4000% markup? The shiny cellophane wrapping? The stupid adhesive plastic strip along the edge? The cheap (as in quality) plastic case? Or maybe it's that flimsy booklet inside, printed on poor paper stock and as often than not containing no lyrics.

The RIAA probably asks itself how this could happen. I'm sure the artists are asking their labels that very same question. And the answer is simple:
You made it happen.

Overpriced CDs that don't contain a full CD's worth of music, wrapped in poor quality containers makes for a helluva lot of profit for the RIAA labels, a steady stream of royalties for the artists, and an overall poor quality product for the consumer. After nearly a decade and a half of this abuse, the consumers are finally fed up with it, and they're saying "No"in perhaps the best way that they can. With their wallets.

Napster Billboard 100

I suggest a modification to napster that records and caclculates totals on the searches that are being done on napster.
Then, you can publish a list of the 100 most requested songs on napster!

That would be a much better indicator of what songs and people are popular than album sales, because certain types of music does not lend itself to sales of albums, though it may be popular.

Im sure you would find that some songs and bands become popular only on the internet that are not popular on the radio (yet).

It would be interesting to see proof of smaller name bands becoming popular due to Mp3 distribution. It would be a good demonstration to those who have doubts as to Mp3's power to make your band more popular.

I know of many bands that I had never heard of that I discovered due to napster and now I love. I have gone to see several of them live. (they probably make more money from me paying for tickets to see them live than from me buying any album of theirs)

Distributed File Sharing Problems

Napster is a protocol devoted to MP3s (although you can now use it for other things), and the RIAA et al hates it. They're going after it, and they're probably going to win. But how does this affect the development of other distributed file sharing systems?

What happens if we attempt to produce a new file sharing system for things like free software, patches, and all the other things currently distributed via anon FTP, HTTP, etc. Are we going to have problems with the RIAA and other copyright owners attempting to block this? A system that allows non-centralised mirroring with signing to ensure file validity and integrity would be a Good Thing. It would make Internet resources more accessable and more fault tolerant. There would be more mirrors, which would tend to be more local and less loaded.

The problem is that if this system is built and then flooded with illegally copied material then copyright holders are going to start throwing lawsuits about. This is likely to stifle innovation. Is there a way we can come up with a distributed file sharing system and make it explicitly clear that it's for the distribution of legal material, without getting sued, resorting to the "it's not our fault what people do with" argument, all without resticting peoples freedom to use it, and hence it's use?

Colin Scott

Yes, and No.....

Although Napster is the largest distribution method, it certainly isn't the only one. It would be impossible for any artist to control their commercialized music on Usenet, IRC, FTP, HTTP, and others. Hell, someone had to buy their CD if the music is being distributed in the first place (I'm sure that if an artist only sold a single CD their label wouldn't be terribly impressed mind you).

The fact of the matter is that Napster is the first method of trading mp3s in a way that is sufficiently convenient to allow for average (and even highly capable individuals such as myself) computer users to download mp3s. Being a long time mp3 user and one of the original founders of #mp3 (undernet, amongst others), I can tell you that IRC, FTP, HTTP, and other decentralized systems are highly flawed, too much so for the vast majority of mp3 users today. The problem with these services is that they're either merely providing indexing, or they're archiving. Archiving clearly exposes them to liability, and thus will never withstand an all out legal attack. Indexing (although likely not immune from litigation) is plagued with problems of broken links, full ftp servers, slow systems, etc.

In other words, given the nature of the internet (human nature, of course, being contained within), there IS a need for psuedo-centralization such as napster (indexing is definetly centralized, and mp3s are effectively centralized and assured in that the listing, downloading, uploading, etc is controlled by the software). Furthermore, any service/software which is sufficiently effective is apt to be sufficiently centralized to be held accountable and to be sued. I, also, highly doubt that services like napster will stand up in the legal system. Thus, I would not say it is "impossible" for artists/labels to effectively control their music.

"the question still remains of why I would buy water when I can get it free from my tap. Less than 10% of the price of a CD goes to the artists anyhow, and I'm just not willing to support the industry anymore (though I really do like quality music and would like the artists to continue making good music, unlike the garbage at mp3.com)."

Artists need some way to profit from their work. Even if only a small fraction goes to the artist, it's better than none. By freeloading you're doing nothing to encourage the production or distribution of "quality" music. While the system may be "unfair", and while you're free to disagree with it, it does not make intellectual property null and void. It exists for a reason, you, as a consumer, have a simple choice: Accept conditions and buy it, or not.

That being said, I'm (obviously) not completely innocent of downloading non-free mp3s myself. However, I've never attempted to justify outright freeloading in the name of "fairness" (nor anything else for that matter). Furthermore, I tend to restrict my mp3s downloads (or ripping) to CDs that I either already own (so I can listen to them exclusively at home on my computer plugged into my hi-fi--I find this the best way to browse and listen while doing computer work), or songs that I likely would never buy in a store (allows me to sample and discover songs, if I find something I really like, I will generally purchase it). In other words, on songs that I do not yet "own", mp3 enables me to listen to a diverse swath of music, which i'd _never_ buy if I had to purchase the CD on which each song belogs. Once i discover something I really like, I will buy it, for the sake of convenience if nothing else (so I can listen to it elsewhere besides my computer), and to get all the other songs (which even napster frequently lacks--one other reason to keep up enforcement).

None the less, intellectual property is intellectual property--I do not have a right to do so. They are perfectly entitled to make reasonable efforts to enforce their rights, especially since they can't trust the general public to go out and buy their CDs in a way that does not discourage future production.

Some of those quotes are great...

...straight from here. [riaa.com] Not that I'd call out Salon for pandering or anything, you do need two sides to have a debate.

I can tell you exactly which artists will be most against napster, and that Creed guy is a perfect example. They are in a class affectionately known as One-Hit-Wonders. There is no doubt they would be against, or at least their agents would be against, Napster, since their entire body of useful work consists of about 3 minutes of music (coupled with 15 of fame).

Now before I get into long, winding arguments again, let me make this clear, I think we do need some form of intellectual copyright protection. HOWEVER, given the nature of the Internet and the nature of digital media, our current model for IP is laughable. The only way to enforce it would be to make what I do about once a week, (surf Napster for bands I just heard of), illegal. I am not a big fan of making ridiculously simple and common actions illegal. You shouldn't be forced to limit your choices in a "free" country.

The RIAA is running scared, expect FUD in large helpings, be prepared to see the word pirate thrown around like it's assumed to be the correct word. . It's not. I am not a pirate. Pirates steal things. Listening is not stealing. This is what happens in a capitalistic society when a billion dollar industry is made obsolete overnight. They don't wanna believe it, they don't wanna change, and dammit all the people that are taking their money are "evil pirates" (since they have a *right* to that money, since they convinced a generation of artists to sign over their life's work (for life+50 years, no less))

Copyright should protect the authors of original works to profit from them. If you want to look at it realisticaly, Napster TOTALLY DESTROYS the *real* pirates, those that SELL other artists works. Laws won't be enough to convince people that having 982,345 songs at your fingertips is somehow wrong. But what we can do, if we can keep this argument objective, is create an environment where people respect the copyrights of another because of the willingness of the original author to share. By enforcing these types of values, we can make it a moral decision that the only person who should be paid for a CD is the artist, not some pirater (be they corporate or independant). Personally I prefer a society that uses values to protect the rights or artists, rather than a government that enforces the rights of corporations at the point of a gun.

We are not immoral pirates, dammit, we like music!!

--

No guilt about burning CD's

One of the main things that people do with mp3's is put them on CD's. This is cause most people don't have that many extra GigaBytes of space on their hard drive.

Canadian law has put a Tax on blank CD's and tapes (here at /. [slashdot.org]). This not only doesn't solve the problem but it condones the mp3 pirating industry. People are more likely to get the newest songs and make a mix CD with no regret because they feel that the bands are being compensated.

I wouldn't be surprised if sales go down in canada this next year. It's not because of the mp3 distributer software, but because of the government's actions have encouraged pirating.

People forget that napster isn't the only way to get mp3's, therefore I don't think it's a direct cause from napster or these kinds of software.