what can replace napster

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 May 01 - 02:26 PM

As I understand the doctrine of fair use, your ten friends have a perfect right to copy the CD that they bought, and they also have a right to tape whatever they like off the radio--as well as to make tapes or MP3 files of the Madonna CD--if you can point to a legal decision that contradicts this, I would be very interested in reading it--

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 01 - 02:46 PM

'make' copies? sure...I 'make' copies of records THAT I OWN all the time...but I would not give them to people who could get them by going to the store. I HAVE made copies of a very few out of print things for friends...and I have taped stuff in order to learn songs...but when I was able to find the originals, I **bought** them. The very first time I met Sandy Paton, I told him I had had some tapes of some Folk-Legacy records for several years, and before that 'look' on his face could develop into a glare *grin*, I proceeded to buy the records from him on the spot.........a LOT of this goes on, and always will, but if you never NEED to see an original, it sure gets tempting.

(and seriously, folks, I am awfully glad my major interest is in trad folk, where taste and whim and fad don't change every 20 minutes..I can see how expensive it CAN be to keep up with the latest pop/rock stuff!)

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 01 - 03:09 PM

First off, MTed, there is a difference between inflammatory language and being straight forward. Some people, when they are on the wrong side of an argument (or at least feel like they are), hide behind the inflammatory comments when they don't have a better argument. I don't know if that is the case here or not.

Stealing is a concept. It is a term developed over the millennia to describe the taking of something that doesn't belong to you. It is a violation of a basic moral priniciple, or a commandment if you are a religious person of most major religious persuasions. It can also be a violation of the law. The reason that the prosecutors aren't after the users probably has to do with scale as well as the wording of the lawsuit. But that has nothing to do with immorality of taking someones property without their consent. The music is the intellectual property of the creator, to do with as they please. If you don't get this, reread Bill D's post until you do. I also object to copying from the radio, but that is a red herring arguement anyway. No one wants to copy off the radio because of quality,commercials, etc. That is why they like Napster. Near CD quality for nothing.

Now, as far as the sampling new music goes, let me make a proposal. Let's say that they could build the site so that you could listen to any cut you wanted but just couldn't download it without a fee per cut, thus giving you all the right to hear whatever music you want and as many times as you want, but you couldn't download it to CD withoug paying. That would be super, right? See.........I know you won't be honest with me here. A couple of you will say, yeah that would be fine. But most of you bigtime supporters of Napster know that the reason you like it is because you get the music without paying for it. And you have yet to admit that basic fact. And that, friend M Ted, is stealing. It is ripping off the owner of the music.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 May 01 - 05:19 PM

Since Thursday last, I have bought and paid for at least 10 CD's. including one by the above mentioned Nic Jones--I resent any implications that I am a thief, and particularly any intimations that I am less than honest about this(or anything else)--

That said, I will re-assert, I have a legal right to fair use of any and all recorded materials that I own, and your opinions about stealing and rights and all, really don't apply to fair use-Even the RIAA acknowleges that copying and related fair use of the copied material is acceptable--

I have been following the Napster legal issues since they initially emerged, and the discussion that has been put forth here does not relate to those issues, and, as a matter of fact, the issues that the plaintiffs have filed against Napster haven't even been set out here--

And Bill, a performing artist doesn't necessarily have any control of either commercial distribution or commercial use of their work--let alone the fair-use personal use that indiviuals may excercise--

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 01 - 05:34 PM

M. Ted, take a breath, willya. I am stating an opinion not calling you a thief. My opinion is that it is stealing, yours is that it is not. Don't take it any further than that.

I am pleased as hell that you have been following the legal arguments from the beginning, bully for you. Apparently you chose to ignore the moral arguments. Respond to those if you choose.

And take it easy, this is a discussion, not an argument. It is not personal. But do me a favor, admit that you like Napster because you get the music for free.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: SeanM
Date: 16 May 01 - 06:26 PM

Mick -

Do you know of a resource where you can listen to the variety of music that Napster carried on an average day?

If so, I'd LOVE to hear about it. I'd be on in a second.

Even with the items I downloaded, I used them in a very similar manner - I 'leeched' from Napster (i.e., downloaded the original and kept it in a private folder for personal use, not further dissemination) and listened to them while I worked. A resource such as you mention would be WONDERFUL, as it would accomplish the same thing without eating up the tremendous chunks of memory the average MP3 does.

And one of M. Ted's points is one that I've heard several 'pro-Napster' artists point out. With contracts the way they are and with the marketing machines set up the way they are, the 'average' recording artist has VERY little control over the way that their music is advertised or released. And, with the continuing joyful contractual abuses that I hear about (my ex-band just recently turned down a contract for a smaller label due to the terms basically guaranteeing a large expense for the band and a likely zero return ever), it's doubtful that this will be changed.

Of course, this really isn't germane to the Napster conversation besides to point out that beyond the VERY small labels and artists, most released musicians do NOT have any real control over their works.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But SOMETHING has got to change, because as it is you have the artists vs. the labels, and the artists vs. Napster, and everyone vs. the artists. That's just wrong.

M

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 01 - 06:28 PM

a performing has ALL the rights to his own stuff until he signs something...his choice as to what he signs. If I buy a copy of his stuff, no matter where from, I can't see me getting the right to post it on the internet as part of that deal unless it is specifically spelled out.

I am NOT defending anyone, or attacking anyone specifically...in fact, I like the idea of people being able to trade 'legal' songs so easily...just don't like bulk, wholesale rip-offs.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: SeanM
Date: 16 May 01 - 06:45 PM

Neither do I, Bill. But unfortunately, chances are that if you want your music to go beyond the confines of the club you're playing in, you HAVE to 'sign something' giving away your rights.

Recent developments in copyright laws have basically stripped the artist of any input or rights to his work once recorded - it's now a 'work for hire', owned by the label and not the musician. There have been many wonderful threads started by a few of our resident copyright watchers around... and I agree with their point that the record label's take on all this has become obscene.

Once again - this doesn't make the Napster issue any more right or wrong. But it DOES point out the need for an alternative. This, Napster was. A BAD alternative possibly, but an alternative nevertheless.

M

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 May 01 - 07:27 PM

When you talk about business, which, unfortunately, music is, morality is not a driving force--

At any rate, I pay too much money out of pocket for you to ever convince me that I am getting anything for free--In addition to the money that I pay for CD's and shows, I pay up to $50 per month for this damned, slow, internet connection (server fees plus a hefty overtime fee if I exceed my monthly limit) and a phone connection charge--

I am more inclined to think that if things were a bit more fair, a part of the the money that goes to Verizon and company ought to be divided among those who create and provide the content that I am accessing on the internet--

When you think about it, we all pay for everything we view or download on the internet, it is just that all the money goes to the carriers, and not to the content providers--

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,Grabster ....lol
Date: 16 May 01 - 08:21 PM

Really folks the whole idea is silly to start. The other day while poking around in Pal Talk joined a free acoustic jam and guess what, that music was narural happy and far far better than the edited tight boring freaking crap that is supposed to be popular.

Listening to the popular CD selections these days explains a lot of things like violence and depression in our society.

Mudcatters sometimes play there too and it is fun. The fact is that Music used only be live, there was no recorded material in those times which some elementary math shows to be a far greater age.

The one thing that is missing from the Corpomusic is spontaneity and fun. Listen to Garth the CorpoDrone and be disgusted.

Net Music is going toward Live and away from recorded because Live is better.

Grabster - if you want secondhand stale music - go ahead have a nice fantasy and be depressed, if you want to fooo fooo go sing, play and listen to Real People in Real Time and be happy.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 May 01 - 01:16 AM

Just for the sake of argument, dialectics if you will, let me venture an opinion.

The argument that "music is the intellectual property" of the maker is an argument that is not intrinsically, morally right. It is argued to be morally right in the context of a capitalist "for profit" milieu.

I believe that the only way to argue effectively that downloading an artist's music for free is morally wrong is to first ask that artist if he or she objects. Some may not. Morality, to me is a concept that exists only in the context of the direct personal interaction between one person and another.

I am always skeptical of any argument about morality in the context of capitalism. Moreover, we are beset with religions across the world which argue that their version of "morality" is the correct one. Just my two cents...harpgirl

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,yum yum
Date: 17 May 01 - 05:26 AM

I have only just got back into the thread. It's ok to sort the rights and wrongs of whether to use napster and other such outlets, BUT Texastoolman's request has got lost somewhere along the way. So, after reading all that has been said since my departure I can only add: A new thread should be started on 'FOR/AGAINST NAPSTER' and 'Should we judge folk on their manners when they make a request'? My opinion, Ed is correct, so: texastoolmaninfutureifyoumakearequestiforonewillignoreyouatleastuntilyouhavethemannerstosaythanksbesidesthefactyouhavebeenaskedtodosomanytimesinthisthread!

I feel better for that.

thankyou all my love Yum Yum.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 17 May 01 - 05:38 AM

er, what I was trying to say waaaayyy back up there was that napster may be detested by many, but the new alternatives such as gnutella and the rest can't be subject to the same method of control that napster has now established as they are not centralized. It is virtually impossible to shut down or filter these new peer-to-peer services. At least napster had some degree of control over the files being transmitted. With these new methods, it's not just mp3s that can be shared - you can get mpegs etc. as well
We have to face up to the fact that file sharing over the internet is here to stay, and instead of attempting to stop it, which isn't going to work, we should be looking for changes in licensing and copyright laws and royalty payments.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 May 01 - 07:53 PM

Fair enough. I agree that it is pretty hard to put the genie back in the bottle. But I don't think we can start addressing the issues of royalties, licensing and copyright until people recognize that artists do indeed own their intellectual property, and it is their decision as to how they choose to put it out. There is an analogy. If one owns a GM car, they can certainly loan it to whom they want. But go ahead and make an exact copy of that car and make it completely available to the world to do the same for nothing and see how far it gets. Or even attempt to copy some of their technology in a different design of vehicle, and then give the copies away for nothing. Not a lot of difference. When I continually tease you folks by telling you to fess up to the fact that despite the lofty arguments what you are really after is free music, I do it because I don't think the issue can be resolved until folks admit to the basic premise. And once you do, all the other arguments become pretty weak.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 May 01 - 09:27 PM

Owning a GM car, copying it and giving the copies away for nothing. Now there is a moral act. Particularly if you gave them away to people who needed them, sorta like habitat for humanity...that's morality to me.

Take creative accomplishments out of the frame of capitalism. Then think about them. Thank God for the National Museum of Art. The rich and poor can view great works. Why can't the rich and the poor hear great music in the same way? It's about capitalism, not morality....geez

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Bill D
Date: 17 May 01 - 09:42 PM

the poor can view great works AND hear great music...but they usually don't try to take home an 'exact' copy of the Picasso or Rembrandt...and the copies they have are for SALE.

You can go hear Rick Fielding play music, but he might have an opinion if you were to plug your digital recorder into the sound system.

Now, you can record any durn thing that *I* play, 'cause I'm not trying to make a living or writing songs.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 May 01 - 09:46 PM

What about giving copies of AIDS drugs away for nothing? Is that immoral? I think not. But those drugs are some coporation's "intellectual property." hg

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 May 01 - 09:50 PM

Bill I didn't say people shouldn't try to make a living. I am a capitalist, God help my soul. Just don't mix up morality with capitalism.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: pipsqueak
Date: 17 May 01 - 11:59 PM

Quote from Bill D :-'make' copies? sure...I 'make' copies of records THAT I OWN all the time...but I would not give them to people who could get them by going to the store. I HAVE made copies of a very few out of print things for friends...and I have taped stuff in order to learn songs...but when I was able to find the originals, I **bought** them. The very first time I met Sandy Paton, I told him I had had some tapes of some Folk-Legacy records for several years, and before that 'look' on his face could develop into a glare *grin*, I proceeded to buy the records from him on the spot.........a LOT of this goes on, and always will, but if you never NEED to see an original, it sure gets tempting.

(and seriously, folks, I am awfully glad my major interest is in trad folk, where taste and whim and fad don't change every 20 minutes..I can see how expensive it CAN be to keep up with the latest pop/rock stuff!)

-----------------------------------------

I'm just using your letter to help me illustrate my angle on the 'free music' issue Bob, nothing personal. I know the thread is old now but I couldn't sleep after pondering 'moral' issues here.

Bill's letter made me think about the roots of folk music ....how it was a community experience 'shared' by musicians & audience alike, without the audience, trad/folk wouldn't exist ! It was born from communities 'sharing' their joy and musical appreciation, and making each other's lives, a bit more endurable. No-one 'charged' entry fee. The musician received as much inspiration from the singer's & dancer's & social interaction, as they received from the musician. So - you could conceivably say that a 'folk' musician, deciding to go pro and charge his audience, is actually 'stealing' from Traditional music full stop. I'm not saying this is how it is, just a different angle.

Also I'd bet that most of the 'artists' that whine about losing money because of Napster, - didn't give 2 short shits about inflicting their 'free' music on their neighbours ears during their less talented years.

It's all swings & roundabouts, but I think it's a very harsh judgement to call people thieves, because they download a 'freeby'.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Ella who is Sooze
Date: 18 May 01 - 03:26 AM

I've been using soundjam (tm) MP

not bad and fairly quick!

Ella

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 09:32 AM

Well, pipsqueek, you should note that I didn't call anyone a thief, but what I did do is define what stealing is to me. After all, this place is about expressing ones opinion as much as anything else.

Once again, certain among you seek to obfuscate the issue. You try to make analogies that are completely off base. I agree that it would suit my own Robin Hood sensibilities to take from GM to give to others, Habitat would be great. But you know damn full well we weren't speaking about that. We are speaking about intellectual property. We are speaking about the right of the artist to have their music distributed according to THEIR OWN wishes. All these platitudes about the old days certainly make me wish I lived then, but we don't. We live in the age of computers, and by the use of the PC, someone has found a way to take that which I work hard on, and invest my time and MONEY in, and give it away. This is a direct subversion of my wishes and costs me money. Ultimately, for the small independent artist, this could lead to the inability to create new music. And I repeat my basic contention, that none of you will admit to. Despite all your attempts to justify it through smoke and mirrors, this all really boils down to one thing. You have found a way to have something for nothing and you are using every obfuscatory argument that you can to avoid admitting that simple premise.

Websters 7th New Collegiate Dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of the word "steal". "To take from another without right or without detection". That is not my definition, but theirs. But what I would say is, if the shoe fits, put it on.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Mark Clark
Date: 18 May 01 - 10:30 AM

I saw this article from the Gartner Group (an IT research firm) on it's Tech Republic Website and thought some of the participants in this thread might be interested. They discuss the implications of peer-to-peer (P2P) technology for the music industry and suggest a new business model for the record companies.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: mousethief
Date: 18 May 01 - 10:35 AM

Can professional musicians make enough money playing live gigs to forego royalties from recordings? Because if technologies like Napster et al. prevail, and no way is found to make people pay for recorded music, and more and more people get CD burners and download music for free, this question will become more and more relevant. If the answer is no, then we will have a world without professional musicians.

On the issue of mixing morality and capitalism: Morality applies to all of life, if it applies at all. If there is some area of your life which is free from ethical scrutiny, what you're saying is that there is some area of your life where you admit you're doing wrong, or want the right to do wrong. Which is wrong.

Just my li'l ol' opinions.

Alex

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 10:41 AM

Great article, Mark. Your contributions, whether we agree or disagree, are always valuable and I look forward to reading them always.

This article is a well thought out essay on the problem and potential solutions. Given that we are all pretty set in our opinions on the right/wrong of it all, this could serve as a basis for further discussion of proper solutions.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,Pontiac Joe
Date: 18 May 01 - 10:44 AM

I'm sure Son House and Freddie King aren't making any money of record sales.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: mousethief
Date: 18 May 01 - 10:47 AM

I'm all for letting copyrights lapse at the death of the artist, or some reasonably short time (eg 50 years), whichever comes last (so people who die young can leave "life insurance" in the form of royalties to their children).

Alex

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 10:56 AM

And those are good examples, Pontiac. I think one of the things that bother me most about all these folks trying to justify their positions is that they attempt to cloud the real issue by using the big companies as the whipping post. I care less about the big labels, and agree that they rip off artists. I agree that GM, et al, rip off folks. I fight about the use of sweatshop labor in Walmart/Kathie Lee goods every single day of my life. But to use that as the basis for justifying YOU taking from the artists just boggles my mind. To set up a system so that you can steal from the big boys that also allows and encourages you to take from the ones you profess to have empathy for, is madness and immoral. And to try and act like it is OK because it is easy and everyone does it has plenty of precedent in the pantheon of mass misdeeds.

It still comes down to you want what I create for nothing. And then you attempt to act indignant when we protest. Find me a way to use this technology to sell my efforts and support me doing more, and I will. But I will choose who I will give my music to.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 11:00 AM

BTW, I really liked your post on morality, Alex. We may not always agree either, but keep callin' 'em like you see 'em.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: mousethief
Date: 18 May 01 - 11:08 AM

If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary (in the discussion, I mean, not in life).

I think the only way the music industry can get behind online distribution of music is if there is a way to prevent somebody copying a song the second time. What's the use of charging for downloading a song from sony.com when the downloader can turn around and email it to 50 friends? I think it is possible, however, if the big music bucks would put a lot of $$$ behind researching a system of encoding which is vastly superior to anything we have now, but which disallows secondary copying (however that might work). People would buy the music because it sounds so much better than an mp3.

What's sad is that there is SO much stuff which is out of print, and not very likely to come back into print (e.g. they've done a CD of "greatest hits" of Allan Sherman, but have not brought out all of his albums; or has anybody ever seen more than one CD of Biff Rose?). THESE things, which the music industry isn't making any money on anyway, they could easily slap onto mp3 or some other electronic format and sell on the web, and those of us who are more interested in good music than new music would probably pay for the privilege of downloading it. I know I would.

Alex

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Mark Clark
Date: 18 May 01 - 11:23 AM

I confess I wasn't really following this thread, I just posted the article because I thought it might be germane. My own moral compass seem to be more closely aligned with Big Mick's, I just haven't figured out a way to fix the problem.

I never download tunes from the Net. All the MP3s on the systems I use were encoded directly from CD's that I personally paid for and own. If I enjoy a performer, I buy a CD—from the performer himself if I can. I've even purchased recordings from performers I wasn't wild about but felt they deserved my support. I'm not in a position to directly influence the behavior of others so I work on trying to improve my own.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 May 01 - 11:47 AM

I don't think several of you really understand my point. Attempting to get something of value for as small an investment as possible is a basic tenet of capitalism. I think anyone who participates in a capitalist system runs the risk of having their creations taken for as little return as possible. It is the capitalist way. It is also the capitalist way to try to sell something of value for as large a return as is possible. I never said this is right. In fact, it is logical to thus conclude that capitalism is stealing and capitalism is immoral.

I want to live in a world where artistic creation is free to all to enjoy. But I won't until I cross the river....

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 11:58 AM

I understand, and understood, your points, Harpgirl. The only way it will happen when you cross over the river is if there is a way for the maker of the music to do so and still take nourishment, and not take resources from his/her family so you can enjoy the music. Since context is hard to get here, please understand that I am not directing that comment at you in a critical way. I actually applaud the desire. The comment is made more to make a general point about the subject at hand. I don't think that those who defend the use of napster understand, sometimes, that the artist (in order to create a recording) has to use resources that otherwise would be used to support themselves and their families. Now, we know that motivation is to share the music. But one can only justify the use of the resources for a couple of reasons. One must be that they can afford to continue making/collecting the music, and still feed the family unit. And being and living in a capitalist society, another would be to make a modest profit. Both of those are jeopardized by this technology. I will sit around the campfire and share my music with anyone, and at anytime. But the recorded music must be mine to control for the above stated reasons.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 May 01 - 12:07 PM

And by logical extension, fighting to keep capitalists from totally ripping one another off day in and day out is a very noble way of spending one's energy.

Perhaps if small independent artists didn't have to make a living in the immoral world of capitalists, the stealing that affects them wouldn't exist.It would be interesting to fund a study to find out if places like napster (which I have never even visited, let alone used) ultimately improve the small artist's ability to make a living with their music.My guess is they do because of distribution.

Morality and moral acts are not relative to me. I don't see how anyone can conclude that from what I am arguing.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 01 - 12:15 PM

Big Mick, I don't agree that it all boils down to one thing - "Us trying to get something for nothing" ! I share your concerns about it putting the smaller artists out of business....but on the whole people who support those 'struggling' artists, are as aware of our obligation to support them by paying for their product, as you are. I AM fully aware of that moral aspect.....however - I have downloaded from napster a few times....specifically to see what Skunk Anansie was like, I had heard some great stuff of their's & some awful stuff & wasn't sure if I wanted to waste my money on something I wouldn't listen to - CD's are expensive. I'm quite skint most of the time. This led me to buy three of her albums & go rushing out to buy every new release - "without" going back to Napster & downloading bad quality, glitchy recordings. The professional musicians would be very divided on this issue - some would see it as a way to improve their sales, some would regard it as the opposite, if the record companies allowed their musicians to 'speak-out' for themselves, I am sure the serious fans would respect their wishes & not take the 'freebie' option.

pip (sorry I ramble - I'm not so good at self-expression)

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 May 01 - 12:16 PM

I also think that capitalism fuels the use of this amazing technology. But ultimately I believe that using one's gifts to build a computer, or paint a picture or write a piece of music is a gift from God.(You know, that Puerto Rican lesbian person!!!)

Capitalists use our amazing technology to find better and better ways of getting something of value for as small an investment as possible. The dominant culture does not seek to fight napster because it is immoral but because it affects profits, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,pipsqueak
Date: 18 May 01 - 12:18 PM

that last post was from me !!! (unless someone is posting to the board right now )

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,pipsqueak
Date: 18 May 01 - 12:22 PM

Damn !!! sorry harp girl, the one before harpgirl is from pipsqueak ....didn't realise we had to sign in & out.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 May 01 - 01:45 PM

Here is the article that Mark posted the link to above--according to Kenny Rogers life is a poker game, so read em and weep!!!

Commentary: The record industry is in denial about peer-to-peer Feb 15, 2001

© 2001 TechRepublic, Inc.

By Robert Batchelder, Gartner Analyst

The recording industry won the battle to shut down Napster, but the U.S. Appeals Court's ruling also asserted that peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing is legal—and many services will take advantage of that opening.

The Appeals Court ruled that Napster's architecture and the way it ran its service violated copyright laws. Napster lost because it tried to stretch "fair use" laws (which allow individuals to duplicate copyrighted materials for personal use) too far. Napster facilitated mass swapping of copyrighted material between parties who were largely unknown to each other. Generally, a party that enables that activity is not liable unless it knows copyrighted material is being illegally swapped and has a reasonable way to stop it. Internet service providers (ISPs) that simply forward e-mail can legitimately claim such a defense. However, the court believed that Napster (with music companies' help) could have better policed its centralized online directories and subscribers.

The court also ruled that individuals who share copyrighted material via Napster without the owners' permission do so illegally. Interpreted broadly, the ruling could imply that file swapping via the Internet is not protected by the fair use doctrine. Interpreted more strictly, the ruling could mean file swapping of copyrighted material is illegal if the parties are anonymous.

However, the court did state that file-sharing services are legal—even if they have the potential to transmit copyrighted material improperly. That part of the ruling opens the door to file-sharing systems architected differently from Napster's. Napster maintained centralized, searchable directories that enabled users to connect with each other and swap copyrighted music in MP3 format.

P2P file-sharing systems not based on central directories will minimize the legal risk because their operators will have no practical means of knowing what type of information is exchanged. For example, America Online does not create one large searchable directory out of its members' buddy lists. Aimster adds a further degree of anonymity because all messages and files are encrypted during their transfer (via third-party servers).

The inevitable progression of P2P technology means big trouble for copyright holders in general and the music industry in particular. The Napster ruling has not killed P2P file sharing—quite the contrary. File-sharing services will simply look for the same kind of insulation that ISPs have (i.e., they will operate without knowing the content being exchanged). Thus, P2P systems will be used extensively for downloads of every type of content, copyrighted or not.

The music industry's challenge is to embrace this method of distribution effectively. Record companies today focus on mass distribution; they are abysmal at micromarketing and distribution—for which Internet is a perfect vehicle. Record companies have to learn how to make one dollar on a thousand bands rather than a thousand dollars on one band.

Bertelsmann plans to sell subscriptions for accessing its record library through Napster. However, Gartner believes that such arrangements will have limited appeal for consumers. The record companies should take a lesson from Gillette, which gives away the razor to sell the blades. Hit songs are the razor, the complementary revenue streams that a song generates are the blades.

Napster's success demonstrated consumers' preference for loosely organized communities centered around a common interest. Record companies would therefore do well to sell modestly priced membership in P2P communities focusing more narrowly—say, on particular artists. Hit records would act not so much as revenue generators in and of themselves but as free advertisements. With that mindset, record companies would want hits to be distributed in as many places as possible, to induce consumers to sign on. For a year's subscription, consumers would get access to all of an artist's music as well as information about the artist, concerts, memorabilia and so on.

The record companies will likely have to take the risk of losing revenue from hits to drive revenue from communities. Otherwise, consumers will simply turn to P2P sites that will offer the same music for free. The industry will not be able to stamp them out as it did Napster, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce copyrights and collect royalties.

Given the court's ruling and the pace at which P2P technology advances, the music industry has months, not years, to develop a credible Internet distribution strategy. Unfortunately, the music industry does not seem to realize how quickly it will lose the P2P war, even though it won the Napster battle.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,pipsqueak
Date: 18 May 01 - 02:21 PM

Thank-you M Ted. I've been getting in a terrible muddle round this discussion board ... I missed that link.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 May 01 - 02:34 PM

I think that the article shows that the court feels that it is possible for indivduals to continue to exchange music files via the internet, with certain constraints that conform pretty much to the fair-use doctrine--in other words, in principle P2P exchange of files, via the internet is *not* stealing--Given that, the court was also clear in indicating that there are certain types of distribution that infringe on copyrights--The courts always like to give a little bit in principle to both sides--In practical terms, Napster is destroyed (except for those of us who are sharing the music that is old and obscure--but, as the author points out, in the long run, P2P wins out--

Those who are interested in the "making a living" aspect of this should read what he says very carefully, like it or not, that is the way things will be going--

Now on to you Mousethief--

The true fact of the matter is that the recording industry and the availability of recordings (which we love so much) pretty much destroyed the career prospects for most musicians--there was a time that, if you wanted to dance, you had to hire a band, or at the very least, sit Uncle Fred down at the piano--then radio, jukeboxes and sound systems made it possible for people to listen to their favorite songs, by their favorite artists--

The time was, if you learned to play an instrument and read a little bit, you had a career(meaning when you played, you got paid, and there was enough work to pay the rent and feed the family on a steady basis), same as a roofer,a teamster, or a plumber--now most of the money goes to the people who distribute the records. with only a small bit going to those who actually play the music on them--

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: hesperis
Date: 18 May 01 - 03:08 PM

If one is hungry and one steals a loaf of bread... what then? Is that immoral?

But it is illegal... and you can be put in prison for it.

It is wrong to punish someone for a basic human need.

I also consider art to be a basic human need, particularly if you are poor in money. Art can keep you going when nothing else can. Art can lift you out of depression. Art is the inspiration that makes me determined to get healthy, so that I can make money someday. Should I just lay down and die because neither the goverment or the social support systems are willing to recognize my disability and help me?

Is it stealing if you couldn't have bought it anyway?

In high school, friends gave me mix tapes because they knew I'd never have the music and the memories otherwise. I still cherish those tapes. (This was after someone helped me out by giving me a small portable radio/tape/CD player.)

Without money, I can't support other people to do their art - because I myself need support.

(BTW, I don't have napster.)

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Mark Clark
Date: 18 May 01 - 03:53 PM

The law in its wisdom punishes the rich as well as the poor for sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.

      — Anatole France

      - Mark

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 06:44 PM

Harpgirl, I haven't read all the responses down to here, but I want you to know that I don't think you are arguing. Most of the points you are making are salient and well thought out. The fact that I disagree with a portion is simply part of discussion. At the risk of sounding as though I am pandering, I find myself agreeing with what you wish for. There are just elements, in a practical sense, that I don't think can work. I willread the rest now, but I wanted you to know that.

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 May 01 - 06:55 PM

OK then, Pip, I will assume that you wouldn't mind if they take the ability to download and put it under control. Here is what I have in mind. Answer, please, if you find it acceptable.

Napster is changed so that you can listen only to any and all tracks. That way you can hear anything you want without purchasing. Those tracks you like you can download for a per track fee, of say $0.75 to $1.00 US. The download will have encryption so you cannot recopy it onto another CD-R.

I would appreciate all you who think that is OK to say so. If it is not OK, say so.

I believe that most won't like it, because it stops them from the one thing that I contend drives them - they get it free. Let's see.

M. Ted, I think you should reread the article. They were very specific about the interpretation of the fair use doctrine. And they were very clear about the rights of the copyright holder. The author, not the court, went on to hypothesize that the industry had better get busy and find a way to incorporate P2P strategies. I can't wait until you and I meet in Lansing. We are going to have a helluva good discussion, I believe.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: GUEST,Pipsqueak
Date: 18 May 01 - 09:01 PM

Yep I go along with all those proposals Mick - great ideas. How would we actually listen to these files - technically speaking ???? I'm quite new to computer 'stuff', but am just wondering how we would listen to the tracks, - I've tried 'radio stations' over the net, but they are too awful to listen to for more than a minute, (sound quality wise). Pip

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 May 01 - 09:20 PM

I read the article fairly carefully Mick--you didn't read my post very carefully--the court's contention, at least as I get it through what has been reported(I haven't gotten a hold of the decision yet) is that in the case of Napster, because the files were exchanged among people who were primarily unknown to one another, the principles of fair use were not a primary issue--I will get the court documents and post them here, but I won't have time to look for them this weekend--

At any rate, Napster is still there, and there are still plenty of files to he heard--

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: SeanM
Date: 18 May 01 - 09:23 PM

I've said it before, Mick, and I'll say it again -

Great idea!

The only problem is that current wisdom from 'the big guys' is that they do not want that to happen. They prefer a system whereby they have exclusive control over what 'their' artists have available on the market - something that Napster and other 'P2P' services threaten, and something which they've put a lot of effort into making sure is their provenance (and not the original aritsts).

Though, actually, technically there is a problem. I'll go out on a limb here and say that there will never be an 'uncrackable' coding system to keep people from copying. It's the 'foolproof' dilemma. For every foolproof system, some damn idiot goes out and invents better fools.

Much the same for software security. A recent example was the 'unbreakable' coding that a company actually issued a challenge to the 'hacking' community over, claiming that their software was un-reproduceable within some very tight artificial confines - i.e., the code had to be cracked within a certain time, the ORIGINAL copy made from the broken code had to be doable by someone with limited skill (rather than the reality of a hacker breaking the code and then the MP3s spreading to the less enlightened), and other restrictions. Despite these artificial 'rules', and despite a fairly vigorous effort on the part of the "underground" to discourage anyone from taking the company up on the offer, it still took (I believe) One week for eight different groups to step forward with broken and copied files.

M

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 19 May 01 - 05:07 PM

While we're arguing over Napster cutting into artists' rights, look at the fact that the Britney Spears, Metallicas, and Puff-Daddy's of the world, who are the most downloaded, are losing out on pennies for a lost record sale. The real rip-off is the record companies who keep the lion's share for the artists "intellectual property", before anyone on line, ever gets involved. It's a real shame to see the independant recording ripped off, but I really don't see that happening too often. If Art Thieme had a nickel for ever CD sale he's lost to napster, he could buy a cup of coffee. (No offense intended, Art. I bought one of your Cds from a vendor at a concert, and enjoy it. That was the first or last I've heard of you outside of the Mudcat.)

Bill D brought the subject of live taping (if you tried to plug in a digital recorder to the sound system).
There are a good number of artists who actually encourage it, David Grisman Quintet, String Cheese Incident, Leftover Salmon, Hypnotic Clambake, The Grateful Dead, Donna the Buffalo, the Freight Hoppers just to name a few. It's been described as the ultimate word of mouth. I can tell you that this band or that is great live, but If I hand you a tape, and say, "This was a nice show", you don't have to take my word for it. I got into an argument with a local agent here, when I offered to make her a tape of a David Grisman Quintet show, she had missed. She got quite indignant with me spouting about artists losing revenue and blah-blah-blah. My friend who had taped the concert did it with David's blessing. I've got a lot of bootleg tapes of different artists, but I don't have many tapes of artists, I've not later on gone and paid the almighty dollar to see.

Rich

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: hesperis
Date: 20 May 01 - 01:50 PM

Mark - except that the rich steal bread from the mouths of the poor and call it legislation... when it is about the power of the rich, not about fairness or justice.

Subject: RE: what can replace napster
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 May 01 - 02:08 PM

That was the point. The rich are never caught sleeping under bridges and stealing bread. There once was a rich man who found a way to steal all the savings of middle class Amercians. By law, the funds had to be replaced by the very people from whom the money was stolen. Now that rich man's brother has become President Per Curiam of the nation.

      - Mark