Some may perceive this as a cheap way to start a thread... let's face it, there aren't many topics that divide the masses as quickly as this!

But it really isn't! I'd like to hear from everyone, but especially those who have rationalized stealing music... which I guess gives away which side I'm standing on<G>!

Since I started it, let me briefly(?) state my case:

And let me make one thing very clear... I am not talking about files that are available through Napster because the artist chose to make them available. That is not the problem! If an artist chooses to make their material available for everyone to download either through Napster or on any other web site that is their priviledge... it is their intellectual property and they can (within the bounds of any contractual obligations they have) do with it what they wish.

I have several problems with Napster, and when I really stop to think about it, I can only find one positive thing to say, so I'll start there... Napster could provide solutions to two of the bigger problems facing the music industry today - (a) breaking new acts and (b) pandering to folks who don't have the imagination to listen to an entire album. OK, perhaps I could have worded that second one a little differently, but the fact is that many record buyers only want to buy the hits... the pendulum swings back to the days of personality radio and the top 10! The catch is that back then it was genuinely cheaper to produce a single than an LP, and today the price benefit isn't there, so a CD-single costs almost as much as a CD album. This makes it very difficult for young buyers to buy only those things that radio and MTV have beaten into their immature little brains.

Guess my bias is showing... when I came of age it was the era of album rock... grand concept albums and artists filling their albums with mostly good stuff. You might buy an album on the strength of something you heard on the radio, but you could be pretty certain that you'd find other stuff there you liked as well.

But times change, and I guess I should just be glad that I grew up when I did (musically speaking anyway!)

So what's wrong with Napster?

1) It is a thinly veiled attempt to pick the venture capitalist's pockets without actually doing anything

I guess this irks me because it is just so insulting to everyone. The folks that started Napster did so with an eye towards making a quick buck through the investment community. There's nothing ethically wrong with this approach, though some may point out that it doesn't actually work all that well - the point is they are giving away other people's property, property they have no legal right to, in order to make a buck. They are using other people's hard work to get rich... yeah, that shows tremendous respect for all the artists they claim to be helping!

Come on now... these folks are so cheap they didn't even buy the CDs that they are distributing... they let their members do it for them. And they don't support the servers that serve up the music... once again they let their members do it.

So they have a business plan where they don't have to pay for the infrastructure, or the content, and they get a big payday because this little scam attracts the eyeballs that some pundit has decided are worth advertising to.

It is a heck of a business plan!!!

2) It does not respect the artist's right to choose how they distribute their intellectual property

To me this is the bottom line. An artist creates something because they have the need to express themselves... but if you think that they don't expect to be compensated for their efforts, their creativity, etc, well, you live in an interesting world!

It's called the music business for a reason... if there were no element of commerce it would be called the music art. We have long ago left the age when patrons supported the arts... especially popular arts.

3) It prevents the artist from controlling the quality of the presentation of their intellectual property.

If you really think that MP3 encoded files sound as good as the original CD... or for that matter that a CD sounds as good as the original master tapes... well, you need help developing your hearing. MP3s are convenient... no question, but the don't sound all that great, and, believe it or not, a lot of folks spend a lot of effort and money trying to get their music to sound just so. Napster takes that control away from them.

Some will argue that since the artist can't control the system that their work is played back on the whole issue is moot... but I think that misses the point! They tried to create the best possible source so that you could hear what they heard, or at least some close approximation!

4) It is theft

There you have it... you have something that was originally intended to provide a return on the investment made to create it, and you didn't play your assigned role... you didn't pay for it. If they'd wanted you to have it for free they'd have found a way to get it to you for free... it ain't that tough!

5) Ultimately, Napster can only hurt the very industry it claims to be trying to help.

If people stop buying CDs then artists will cease to make a living as artists and they will have to find other ways to feed and clothe themselves... and that means no more new music to listen to. (No, I don't believe it will get that far, but you have to acknowledge that it is the ultimate outcome.) Would you continue to do whatever it is you do for a living if you didn't get paid?

Now let's take a look at what Napster is not doing...

It isn't changing the way that the evil record companies do business, though it certainly was a wakeup call. So, stealing your favorite tune from an artist does not remove the yoke that the evil record company placed on their shoulders... no, it actually adds a few pounds to the weight.

And it isn't changing the way that the marketplace works. Napster depends largely on commercially distributed work to get people to use thier client (which provides the advertising)... so they haven't changed a thing.

There is one popular argument that I think needs some air. Proponents of Napster point to the music industry's paranoid delusions that claimed that cassette recorders, video recorders, DAT recorders, and CD recorders were all going to spell the end of distributed music. Then they like to point to sales figures that show that CD sales continue to grow.

THEN they say that like its predecessors, Napster actually increases CD sales.

Well, these folks must have skipped logic 101... there is no direct, causal relationship between Napster members downloading tunes and these same folks buying the CDs. Nor were these arguments any more logical in the preceding cases.

Most likely, CD sales continue to grow because the industry knows how to sell CDs to adolescents... that and the fact that the audience for the current pop music is growing.

Of all the people I know that steal their music from Napster, almost none of them purchase the CDs. They are far too happy to get their music for free.

I'll end this with my other favorite rationale for stealing... which says something to the effect that if you don't like something that you downloaded all that much you wouldn't have bought it anyway... huh???
Your thoughts??

Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Adam's complaints about Napster are valid. But he forgets that the music industry became so introverted as to fear innovation. For example, their response to the Internet was "ignore it and maybe it will go away". Napster is simply what happens when an industry becomes anti-American - fears to innovate.

We are not talking about the artists who are clearly victims if tied into a big music company (ie Metallica). Previously (much of this from long term Cellar Mark I memory) a musican signed with big companies who provided recording services, post-production editing, record publishing, promotion, and one other service that I have since forgotten. People such as Tori Amos(?) (her album was .... Girl where she sits in a rocking chair surrounded by rattlers) recorded her own on DAT, mixed the album on a PC, published her own CDs, distributed using the web, etc. IOW did she really need that big publication company with those overhyped, $multi-million executives?

This is the new realities of music along with a total shattering of traditional music lines. There is no longer just jazz, rock and roll, country, and the crooners. Again, the record industry was not setup to meet the demands of so many niche markets. Again, Napster is the result.

When I read a valuable article, I photocopy it, or even repost it here. What have I done different from what Napster was doing with music? Nothing really. However what I did is legal and what Napster does is not legal? Why?

Copyright laws are not keeping up with the times. Unfortunately most real copyright and patent law is not made by a forward thinking Congress. How can they when Congress are bought and paid for by the $multi-million executives. How can Congress think when they are only enthralled by Clintons penis and forcing right wing religious beliefs on the public. (Hell Congress even knew that 5+% of all votes were routinely disposed and kept quiet 20 or 30 years). IOW the business model for music is archaic. Therefore the business ignores new markets and technologies such as the Internet. (Why did Sony buy a Hollywood studio - so they could force new technologies into a we fear to innovate industry). Changes to copyright and patent law will only be made by lawsuite. Archaic business models are protected again at the expense of the consumer (and therefore of 'under contract' artists).

People today want their music, their way. They want this guy's song, then that other artist's music - arranged on a CD the way the consumer wants it. No way, says the "we fear to innovate industry". Like GM, they fear the cost of such a business rather than see these new markets as assets. The anti-American (anti-innovators) will pay Congress massive 'legalized' brides to perserve the old business model.

So Napster makes an agreement with one big, German music publishing company. The other neanderthals are in a tizzy with anger rather than experimenting with new ways of providing music. After all, articles can be provided to friend - why not music now that it also can be copied so cheaply. The reasons for Napster still exist because the old business models are being protected at the expense of the consumer and the artist.

It does not stop here. China has no respect for intellecutal property. The big boys are now experimenting with 'water marked' music. Does it affect the quality? They say no. A serious sound engineer says yes in a two part article in EDN Magazine on sound compression. Yes, even MP3 compression does take something out of the original quality. But more important to DVD manufacturers is royalities lost to China. China is clearly in the business only to steal profits - because they open say there is no intellectual copyright. This is not Napsters philosophy (although it often works out that way).

New encryption standards including a new DVD recording method (they think) China cannot duplicate is in the works for video recording. The industry is so anti-American that their previous attempt to digitally encrypt music was broken in days by teenagers. However, here they go again rather than addressing the world wide demand for new music distribution methods.

Do I have a better business model? No. But then I don't work for $10's millions every day to solve these problems.

Napster does steal from the industry - but partly because the industry has chosen to make a 1960 technology engine in year 2000 economy. Napster is a symptom of industry neglecting its customers. The new Napster deal with Bertlemann may be the start of change.

You should know more about how your choices are limited. For example a music CD purchased in Europe cannot be played on an American CD player. They even fear that you might find a better price in France. What ever happened to free market? You don't have that right - is the industry opinion. You are sheep to be fleeced. Just another reason why Napster, et al businesses are required.

It's not just the "industry vs its customers". As noted, it is "industry vs its customers and industry vs the pirates - China".

This may appear rambling because I am trying to address a very large problem without myopically limiting to Napster vs the 5(?) music publishing companies. (why only five if the industry was so competitive?) The China question should be mentioned in every issue Adam has raised. To not mention China is to myopically address the issue. Indeed it is complex, but the industry's 'Ostrich Attitude' has not helped their position.

this is just the sort of thing I was talking about in my previous post (BTW, I am Bill, not Adam - Tony explained that my rambling style could be mistaken for Adam's, and I don't want the poor guy to be accused of belief's that aren't his<G>)

Anyway, I have this side job that keeps me in contact, on a very peripheral plane, with the music industry. I'll bet I can come up with a much larger laundry list of reasons why the entire industry should have gone down the drain than most. These are some of the most short-sighted, irresponsible "business people" on earth. It's frightening really what they have done to the entertainment industry, they have made innovation a dirty word, and a sure career ending move.

But that is not the point!!! It is completely irrelevant to the discussion of downloading unauthorized material from the net.

The industry's shortsighted, paranoid behavior may well be credited with the rise of Napster, but two wrongs never make a right, and downloading unauthorized material is still theft!

You mention that you regularly copy magazine articles from magazines if you find them useful. Did you pay for your subscription to the magazine? If you did then your copy falls under the fair use provisions of intellectual property law. If you didn't, well then, you are stil stealing.

Fair Use provisions were included in intellectual property protection laws specifically to insure that these laws do not hinder further growth.

I really don't think that any fair minded person can argue that just because the industry won't give them "their music their way" is justification to steal. I'm probably wrong... people find the darndest ways to justify stealing!

If an artist wants to produce and distribute their own material I think that's great. The best example I know of is Ani DiFranco, whose Righteous Babe label not only handles her prodigous output, but has also resurected the career of Utah Philips... not too shaby for a one woman shop! And there are thousands like her.

The business climate is changing, and the change is brought on largely by new technologies... but that still doesn't justify stealing from an artist who probably put in no small effort to bring you something you might enjoy.

Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Sorry, Bill - right post, wrong poster.

Ani DeFranco's Righteous Babe was the CD I could not remember.

I routinely take and photocopy articles in the library. I did not pay for the magazine, but violate no laws by copying these for a friend. Since I do not resell them, the copying is legal. That was Napster's philosophy - albeit violated by many of its users. However for reasons that confuse me, that is illegal only because the industry is hurt. Of course the industry is hurt. They absolutely - every last one of them - would not and could not look at the Internet.

Stealing should not be legal because the industry is myopic. But then the industry got the problem it deserves. CD music is but the tip of the iceberg that gets even worse with movies. It makes more sense to first address the source of the problem - not its symptom. Napster is a symptom of an industry that outrightly ignored the Internet and simply ignored what future copyright laws should be. Instead of addressing the problem, they killed things such as DAT. Rather than addressing the problem, the problem only comes back with more vengence.

BTW, previously posted in Cellar Mark III(?) is this scary point: only 7% of the nation's industry's contributed to this boom economy. What have the other 93% been doing? The 5 (?) big music publishing companies have sat on their ass living fat off the land. Again, as previously noted, Sony literally bought a movie studio because of the 'we fear to innovate' attitude so prevelant in the industry. Other symptoms of too much anti-American management is the current commercial actors strike (why do you never see the Austrailan sell Suburus, or the "Free and Clear' guy selling Sprint PCS?) AND the upcoming actors strike.

Union problems are directly traceable to adversarial management. Media companies consolidate to control their industry rather than innovate. Guess what is in AOL's future?

I have no sympathy for an industry that has slowly become its own worst enemy, then pays politicans big bucks to attack the symptoms of their myopia.

Recessions and industry economic problems, historically, are the only successful method of saving an industry. Often the little people are hurt in the process. That damage is inevitable and necessary. These lessons were demonstrated in late 1970 Chrysler, early 1980 Ford, 1980 IMB, early 1990 Apple, and now in Xerox. Having protected the industry, we have simply created even greater problems in the steel industry (USX and Bethlehem Steel) and in wireless communication (AT&T).

Attacking the symptom of a problem only makes the future problems worse - made obvious because 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. When symptoms such as Napster become serious, only then will the recording industry eliminate their only problem - top management.

Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

And it is my understanding of the Fair Use provisions that this is legal, although it is skirting the edge of legal<G>!

well... there are an awful lot of folks, some who worked on the "inside" that believe that Napster's philosophy was to make a large killing in the venture market on the backs of others!

And it really doesn't matter if their original philosophy was completely legal and ethical... they morphed rather quickly into something quite the opposite, and made no effort to change that unless challenged, and defeated, in the courts.

NO!!!! It is not illegal only because the industry is hurt... it is illegal because it is theft!

Sorry, but this is a myth... the entire industry has been looking at many different distribution media for years. That they can not find a way to harness the internet that benefits consumer, artist, and industry is hardly their fault... it is not a trivial problem.\

Perhaps the problem is that many people feel that they deserve to get everything they want for free, and have absolutely no respect for the property of others, real or intellectual.

In this case it makes great sense to treat both the problem and the symptoms.

By stealing music you are only "hurting" the "myopic" industry a little... they'll always win in the end because they are large and powerful and they have lots of powerful friends.

The people who really get hurt are the artists who are not compensated for their efforts when that it is their choice to do so.

Just out of curiosity, should it be "right" to steal software just because a the software industry, on the whole, puts out mediocre, half finished products and provides minimal support?

Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Again you are asking questions that a Congress, more interested in Clinton's penis, should have been asking. If I can photocopy are article for another but not Napster a music recording - why the different standards? IOW it is never stealing, legally, until the law defines what is stealing and the lawmakers have, as usual, chosen to let reluctant courts make the laws. This whole Napster mess and even the China copyright problems are directly traceable to reactive laws made because of what our Congressman are more interested in. My god, Intel had to get into an expensive, silly lawsuit with AMD before microcode copyright laws were created. Ergo the copyright symbol now printed on all Intel chips. Laws not created by a Congress only because WE relected 95% of the incumbants even when we were mad at them in 1992.

The industry had not made any attempt at new business models until very recently - the last five years. And then only because of Napster and other new technology problems. They refused to address the piracy issue even with DAT - instead banning DAT from US. In Canada, every DAT tape, whether used to record music or for digitial data storage - a royalty is paid automatically to the recording industry anyway.

That the industry can not find a way to harness the internet that benefits consumer, artist, and industry is hardly their fault... is clearly and directly traceable to industry top management. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Life teachs one thing repeatedly. The solutions almost always existed but the top management refused to listen to those who come from where the work gets done.

This little life secret is fundamental to the American success story. When top management is that anti-American, then new, little companies rise to meet the challenge. Only when Congress protects these 'we fear to innovate' companies do these anti-American managers survive. Rather than endorse the Napster concept, they ignored the whole thing. Now they would blackball Bertelsmann for attempting a negotiated solution? How myopic.

The computer industry does not have a lot of government interference. Therefore DEC, et al upended the anti-American IBM, Unisys, Honeywell, etc. Then the Compaqs, Intels, Ciscos, and Microsofts upended DEC, Data General, Perkin Elmer, Macrodata (MacDonnel Douglas), etc when their management became anti-American.

However USX and Bethlehem Steel are again going to Congress for more protection from another mythical problem - dumping.

That is not to say that the music industry is as anti-American as big steel or AT&T. But the lessons from these 'we fear to innovate' companies do apply to the music industry. The music industry is running for lawyers and government protection rather than realize and correcting their neglect.

I fear you worry about something trivial as Napster. The real problem is international piracy - especially mainland China. The theft numbers there are phenomonally greater and up to now have not been addressed by an industry that was willing to accept this piracy.

More important than Napster is a problem that water marking (yes, just like in paper) and DVD movie encryption stantards is to address. Again, the industry only in the past five years woke up to a problem that existed since the VCR and cassette tapes.

I worked for a company called Aydin who instructed us, verbally of course, to duplicate and steal software from all other divisions. At that time, I would have been the first one in line to testify against these theives. But the industry provided no recourse then. The industry remains all but ignorant to software piracy. Even all Chinese negotiators at a GATT hearing on pirated software had nothing but pirated software in their computers. Software piracy got too bad before the industry finally took notice.

Aydin broke open the dongle for a CAD software package AND actually had an offical company print to duplicate the dongle. At least 20 machines ran pirated CAD software. We even had prints to prove the theft but could do nothing to end this theivery. Again because the industry and especially government only talked about copyright laws but provided no standards. They ignored the problem. In most of the world, 80 to 90% of all software is pirated.

Again, Napster is only a symptom. It is legal to duplicate your CDs for all friends but illegal to do so through Napster. It is illegal for China to distribute CD everywhere but the industry makes rediculous and trivial attempts to end the problem - even leaving laws in confused, archaeic states.

Actually more is being done to stop hardware design piracy internationally by defining standards and testing new methods. But then Sony, Toshiba, and Phillips have more pro-active management. Domestically, the music business would rather use lawyers to prosecute Napster than to create new and uniform copyright standards for new technologies and to create new methods of distributing music.

The stealing does occur. Napster is on the undefined edge of legal vs illegal. My perspective is not about wanting freer music. My complaint is that the industry knew these problems were coming decades previously and did nothing until very recently. What was the biggest first function of the Intenet? To share copies of Grateful Dead concerts. Music piracy? Twenty years later, the industry still did nothing to address the issue? How myopic. They have the problem they deserve - and a reasonable solution is still not defined in US copyright laws.

They mostly ignored the China problem until is was too big. They ignored the laws that Napster straddles until the problem because too big. They have been reactive rather than proactive - and have the problems they deserve. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. The music industry has the piracy problems that they all but wanted.

BTW I also said the artist were victims. But again, the employees will always be the first victims when top management is anti-American - anti-innovation. I have been posting these 'we fear to innovate' examples both here and in the many previous Cellar Mark x for years. Don't worry about the artists. They were victims years ago. It is too late to help them. The old problem is just starting to affect them.

Address the real problem - a management that fears to innovate and that entrenches itself AND a Congress that cannot even trash the useless penny and nickel, that demands to have Clinton's penis examined, and that still cannot address copyright and patent laws. These other problems are only symptoms of myopic management and a 'do nothing' Congress.

Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

BTW, one of the issues to be addressed by the Seattle round of GATT was intellectual property rights which includes copyright and patents. Of course we know who trashed that attempt - with a myopic fear of a world economy.

People see Napster as a big problem because their only news source is "the big story" Action News, et al. Therefore they fear GATT, NAFTA, and cannot put the China piracy problem in perspective.

Maybe the problem is not entrenched management and incumbant Congress. We have met the enemy and he is us - the we who refuse to learn.

Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Bill Gates addressed the piracy problem in China thusly:

"I don't care if they're pirating software, as long as it's Windows."

His theory was that there was no way to have China actually pay for software right now -- the legal mechanisms weren't in place. But someday there would be legal mechanisms, and by then, he hoped, they would be "locked in". And MS had enough money from SW sales everywhere else in the world, that the one-quarter of the world's population that is mainland China was not a concern to him.

My $0.02
 

I'm glad to see people have a good spirited discussion about Napster...

At my last job in DC, several of my co-workers milked Napster for what it was worth. (I guess it pays to have computers with loads of extra HD space.)

I have an ethical problem with Napster. I agree that if people are simply using it to share new music, then it's fine. The main reason all this started seems to have been because Metallica's "I Disappear" single appeared on Napster before it was even available on the M-I: 2 soundtrack. (Although I remember some of the Big 5 complaining about it before then.)

First off, Metallica needs to hire better studio people to prevent stupid s**t like that from happening. Go on the net now...you'll find CDs you can download now that aren't supposed to be available for another month or two. So, if you're finding stuff like that on Napster, then yeah, I'd be pissed too.

The band has a good argument. Metallica actually owns their masters/copyrights, so they stand to lose more than most bands. Whenever their stuff is stolen, THEY lose money, not just Elektra/Time Warner. (As an aside, Metallica is probably one of the most fan-friendly bands that there is...and give away tons of free goodies.) Unfortunately, not every band is as smart as Metallica or Ani DiFranco.

A lot of music fans are horribly mad about the whole mp3.com and Napster situations. But I think they're mad at the fact that they got their freebie switch cut off more than anything.

Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Speaking of piracy, did Microsoft actually steal the technology for Windows from Apple...or was that just some sort of battle cry when Apple was floundering? I know that Apple settled that suit about 3 or 4 years ago, but I never quite understood what the background of it was...

I had always accepted the view that copyrights were the legitimate extension of property rights into the realm of 'ideal objects.' However, some arguments by Tom G. Palmer and Benjamin Tucker (among others), have convinced me otherwise.

Consider an example:
Alice and the Analogs wish to be paid for their original musical efforts. They decide to go on tour, and sell tickets with the stipulation that no one is allowed to bring recording devices into the venue. To the extent that they are successful in screening ticket purchasers at the door
they discourage copying and free-ridership. They do not record their songs nor seek airplay. Thus they discourage others from stealing their intellectual property.

Another group, Danny and the Digitals decide that playing enough venues to make a living is boring. They decide to market themselves differently. They go into the studio and record their original songs. Then they send CDs to as many radio stations as they can while playing a few select gigs to generate interest. Only a small percentage of people who hear their music are motivated to go out and buy their CD, but because so many more people are exposed to their music, they find they can make a living off of their musical ability.

Now suppose Pete the Pirate is sitting at home, turns on the radio, and hears Danny's group. He likes it. He pops in a blank tape and records it. He later sells the tape to someone else who hears it and likes it. The libertarian definition of a crime is the initiation of force or fraud.
Pete has made no contract with Danny not to copy or sell their performance/songs. I would argue that Pete has not committed a crime.

Danny argues otherwise. Since stopping home taping would be impractical, he lobbies congress and gets them to pass a law which adds a surcharge to every sale of blank tape.

Danny also gets congress to cripple recording technology to prevent high fidelity dubbing. It becomes a crime to sell or own pre-ban technology.

Almost any service or good has, as a component of its' cost of production, not only the costs of labor, marketing, capital, etc., but also the cost of exclusion. For the owner of a movie theater, these exclusion costs include paying for walls, ticket windows, ushers. These serve to exclude or fence out 'freeriders'. Now they could set up projectors and show the movies on screens in parks and then attempt to prevent casual passerbys from watching. The method of marketing their product is their choice. In the case where their marketing decision results in the publicness of a
good, it seems to me to be grossly unjust to ask the government to force all who might potentially see the show without paying to kick in some bucks, whether they DO in fact see the show or not. Or to force passerbys to don glasses that prevent them from viewing the movie. Yet the proponents of property rights in ideas choose such a method when they attempt to get every person purchasing a blank tape to pay a royalty to a third party. Alternatively, as with DAT tape recorders, they proposed to ban or cripple entire technologies. This method, done in the name of preventing technologies which are capable of recording
publicized (broadcast) music without loss of fidelity, would
make mere ownership of tangible property (DAT recorder) a crime.

I view proposals for such an implementation of property rights in ideas, which wipe out other areas of property rights altogether, as inconsistent.

In a libertarian society, those that want x pay for x. Artists are welcome to imbed their effort in tangible objects (like CDs) and then try to get everyone who buys one to sign or acknowledge a contract not to copy it. But that will be expensive to police. I don't think the market would support it.

Pat Fallon
pfallon@bigfoot.com

Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Apple stole the technology from Xerox starting with Jobs famous quote, "How come you're not selling this stuff. You could own the world." When Apple turned anti-innovation, they went looking for others to blame; to sue both HP and Microsoft for stealing the "look and feel" of Xerox's technology. Go figure.

We use the word 'steal' in a liberated sense. Legally there was no theft. Obviously, Xerox stifled technology for almost a decade, then Apple refused to license it to others - ie. clones. One of my college friends has a long history also including as an Apples corporate officer just trying to get Apple, then, to innovate. Ironically the pro-innovator was MBA educated.


In semicondutors, a new process was recently developed to inlay copper. Does the process remain only the property of IBM. Yes- if IBM remains as anti-American as it was throughout the 1980s. However IBM licenses the technology because a productive society does share tech breakthroughs to the advantage of all AND to the profit of its creators.

Funny thing about music. For all practical purposes, it is public domain within years. You must create it, get it out, and make your money early. Unfortunately this becomes the advantage of the big 5. After that, the only money is in the reproduction manufacturing. Any laws that make it easier for the little guy to promote and market his product faster is to the disadvantage of the big "only we know what is right" corporate mentalities because it is to the advantage of the economy.

US history if full of American jobs lost because MBA micromanagers could not understand the innovation. Classic of this list include these American created technologies: Sony Trinitron, Honda CVCC engine, transistor radio, McPherson Strut suspension, VCR. Other technologies that were stifled in America to the detriment of Americans: radial tire for almost 20 years, rack and pinion steering, electric arc furnace, statistical process control, sub-1000th inch and computer controlled machine tool technology.

The question is simply how does the music creator still earn his profits while society prospers from his accomplishments? IOW how do we make the big 5 corporations irrelevant or less necessary? Ironically the best source for that answer should come from the big 5 companies.

Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

I did a little reading on Fair Use this weekend, because I thought you brought up a very interesting point... seems there is a clear delineation between what you can and can not copy under the fair use provisions, and a pretty good reason...

You can make a copy of just about anything that is copyrighted for you own use as long as it is for some research purpose, NOT entertainment. What this means, ironically, is that I could go to Napster and download a tune to learn it so that I can teach it to one of my students. How's that for twisted?

Really two different things here... of course it isn't stealing LEGALLY until defined as such. But once it is defined as such we have a responsibilty, as citizens, to either respect the law or cause it to be changed!

As far as the legistators and jurists, and even executives all trying to change their roles... truly one of the more frustrating parts of being an American in this era. The systems needs change, but until enough citizens wake up and do something about it there will be no change.

The Napster mess has little to do with Congress or anything else other than some people believing that the world owes them a living!

Foreign countries ignoring out intellectual property rights is really just another case of someone who thinks that there is no value in intellectual property or innovation.

The Intel vs. AMD question goes a lot deeper though. When that case came about there were no laws, or interpretations of existing laws that addressed microcode. It was a new manifestation of intellectual property and the laws had to be revised to take care of them. Now it SHOULD have been the legislative branch that took care of the matter, but the problems with our system of governance are still a separate question.

Actually, there were many in the music industry who recognized the internet for what it was back when the web was still in it's infancy! That they haven't found a solution is not for lack of trying! If you really have the answer you should execute it and get rich.

The industry made a huge wrong turn when they turned over the reigns to bean counters, I think everyone will agree.

It is an interesting phenomenon though, because there are two very strong influences that caused the change. The first was the discovery that not only was popular music NOT a fad, but that you could make money in it. This attracted the bottom feeders who have more interest in profits than art.

The second was the public's demand for a bigger return on their investment. Let's face it, few industries pay more attention to their customers than the street.

No one, to my knowledge, is blackballing Bertelsmann. There are some jealous complaints because Bertelsmann had the foresight to buy CDNow... which may have been more good luck than good management<G>! And you might have noticed that no one has yet endorsed the Napster concept... they are trying to make the Napster technology profitable, a very different thing.

Whoa there... it's alright for you to steal music via Napster but it isn't alright for someone else to make pirate copies? Why? The profit motive? That's really splitting hairs!

You just made me very glad I never accepted a job there<G>!

But again I have to ask, are you saying that software piracy is OK or not OK, I'm not sure! And if you are saying that it is not OK, how do you reconcile stealing from the music industry?

Huh... it is NOT legal to make a copy of a CD for a friend, never has been, hopefully never will be!

And how does the inadequacy of the attempt made to block piracy make piracy OK?

Napster is not on any undefined edge!!!!!

The industry did not have a clue decades ago because the web did not exist decades ago... the internet as it existed as late as the early 90's was a place for academics and geeks. The rest of the world could not grok it without a gui front end, thus there was not commercial threat or potential there. (I for one do somedays miss the pre web internet!)

The biggest first function of the internet was not sharing Dead tapes... that didn't come along until just before the web itself, AND, that practice was completely sanctioned by the band. This is another case of an artist making a choice and other people interpreting that to mean that all artists would make that choice. There is no logical path from one to the other.

A rasonable solution is not defined because there are many who believe that the "reasonable" solution is to allow access to intellectual property with out reimbursement regardless of the owner's choice on the matter. I have to agree with those who believe this is in no way reasonable.

That is a fact of life today... problems aren't addressed until they become big problems because:
(a) there are so many problems to address
-or-
(b) our legislators are idiots

Take your pick, but the later doesn't speak well for the citizens!

I really hope you are kidding here. It is not too late, and it is NOT management's (no matter how anti-American) fault that people want something for nothing.

How about addressing another real problem, the fact that a large number of people have no respect for other peoples property, intellectual or real? How about addressing another problem, people with severly distorted views on entitlement?

Our system of government has flaws, problems, and needs to be fixed. Stealing isn't going to fix it!

Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

And that was his choice! A choice he is free to make as the owner of that intellectual property.

Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

How is it anti-anything to want to be compensated for the cost of developing an idea? Why shouldn't it be IBM's choice as to whether or not they license this technology?

I agree that licensing makes the most sense for a lot of reasons... it helps the creator recoup expenses at the least, and maybe even make a profit, which encourages future innovation, and it allows others to enhance the idea.

And if this is alright then why isn't it alright for an artist to license their creations and be compensated for their efforts?

The obvious answer is that you teach society to respect property rights, but since that isn't practical, you make laws that provide protection to those who create intellectual property. Oh yeah, we've got those!

While I would love to see the music industry "reorganized" so that artists and the public got a better shake, it probably isn't going to happen as long as the street rules, and I don't see that going away anytime soon.

So we have to live with profit motive... OK, it probably has more good that bad points overall. Which means that new artists need to embrace the web and take advantage of it. Then the big five will be irrelevant for those artists.

In order for this to work, the public has to respect these artists and their right to be reimbursed for their work.

It'll take time, but it really is that simple!

Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

I believe you are misreading what I posted. Clearly stated is that the creator has a right to profit. Also that it is critical to the society / economy for innovations to be shared - to the advantage of all AND to the profit of its creator. The problem is one of people who stifle the new creations. This is but another problem, another example, of copyright and patent laws that require serious, pro-active legislation.

Xerox had every right to sue Apple for stealing their technology - legally. And legally Xerox had every right to stifle the GUI interface, mouse type devices, etc. IOW if the creator's bosses chose to stifle technology, then why is this not reason enough for the bosses to surrender the innovation to the creator? McPherson suspension is a classic example of an idea patented in 1946 and kept out of America until 1980. In the meantime, the creator McPherson was forced to leave America to continue work on his baby.

However the fumdamental point I made was that the creator also must be able to profit from his creation - as muscians should be able to profit from their's. The problem with music is that for all practical purposes, it is all but public domain after five years - and the industry's non-innovators don't like it.



In some other points: the internet's first major function was to share Grateful Dead concert --- in the 1970s. The internet is that old - just was mostly in the acemdemic community. Even in we fear to innovate Aydinin early 1980s, I was running an internet connected VAX. But the facts known from all that technology should have been sufficient warning for even Congressmen and music industry executives to see the future. No they sat on their asses almost another 10 years after the Internet became more ubiquitious - intentionally ignoring everything about the Internet even before Napster existed.

When is it illegal to copy something if you don't sell it? Also this special exemption for entertainment is new to me - as is the interesting lawyer's twist of claiming the CD's are for music study.

Napster's loss in court was not that they were infriging on copyright but that they were doing damage to the industry. Napster was not selling anything. Indeed most of the music exchanges were not even on their machines. But it was Napsters action's that hurt the industry.

Limiting law only to it myopic perspectives, then OK, that is correct. Lawyers are only interested in the letter of the law - not its purpose. But I agrue that the Napster case ignored the bigger picture - that people and music creator both are denied rights to freely exchange (and profit) from new technologies because, like McPherson, the big industry leaders have conspired to ignore new market demands, needs, and possibilities. Indeed Bertlemann is not being openly blackballed - just like the American auto industry was not blackballing Honda and Volvo - even though the industry kept shutting down trade associations so that Honda and Volvo would be excluded again. Actually Bertlemann is getting a very cold shoulder from it industry peer only because they endorsed the new markets. Bertlesmann has chosen to confront and do business with the internet. The others still sit on their asses - they don't even have a good plan to deal with China after how many decades?

The concepts of the Internet were learned first in the 1970s. To say the industry could not have known in the late 1990 is to prove the industry is guilty of being an ostrich. From PBS's Trimuph of the Nerds - the major internet function was music exchange. That should have been well known to the music industry by the late 1980s. Instead they ignored same.

BTW the same problems in music will also be in movies as technology marches on. Without better internet music solutions, then the same piracy problems will expand to all other electronic entertainment industries.

I am not saying that stealing is supported or legal. Indeed the little people (ie. Metallica) are always the first to suffer when the industry big wigs fear innovation. I share Metallica's pain. But I must first worry about America.

Any industry that is more worried about their profits than about their products - is no different than the mafia. Only the enemies of a free market system would say that the purpose of a company is to earn profits. That is corruption. The purpose of a company is to provide society with new products and services. If said company serves its purpose, then it deserves the REWARD - profits. If said company is only worried about profits, then it is to society's advantage that it have none. Napster indicates that the industry may have more profits than it deserves - not necessarily legally but economically and socially.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

I guess I did miss something... if you believe that both society and innovators benefit from the protection of intellectual property why aren't you extending that courtesy to artists?

How is music "all but public domain" after five years?

The internet goes back to the late 50's, and it's principle purpose up until the world wide web was the dissemination of information between the DOD and academia. That tape trading went on between deadhead geeks at universities didn't bother anyone, including the Greatful Dead, back then because the band encouraged taping and trading.

When you prevent the person who owns the rights from recognizing a return. If I steal a car and give it to a friend is that legal?

You'd be surprised at the breaks musicians get<G>! If I buy a CD for the sole purpose of research I can write it off on my taxes... now my accountant tells me that such things can be red flags, and the number of CDs I buy for purely research is so small that I don't bother, but the idea that artists study other art is not new.

That is not how I interpret the news stories I've read. I understood that the Judge issued a TRO because she felt that the prosecutors had sufficient evidence of copyright violations to win their case.

Lawyers (and legislators) are supposed to think about the intent of a law, judges are supposed to interpret laws in their context.

You suggest that the bigger picture is that artists and consumers are supposed to be have access to free exchange - while at the same time allowing the creator to profit. If it is free than there is no renumeration, and no one can profit.

The really insulting irony is that the only one who profits from the Napster debacle was the greedy bottom feeders who started it.

I don't know if that analogy fits perfectly, but the fact that most medium to large sized businesses fear Wall Street analysts is a symptom of the problem. The consumer is no longer the person to whom the CEO answers to (maybe they never really were), but rather, it is the investor who now calls the shots.

Maybe in a ideal world, but today, in the real world, most company's first priority is keepling the shareholders happy. And we've brought this whole mess on ourselves through rampant greed.

Again only in the ideal world. And (getting back on topic) I really don't see how the corruption of the free marketplace can justify hurting yet another business person, in this case the artist.

Who is it that decides whether or not a company makes too much profit? I know who decides when they don't, Wall Street, but who is appointed the profit czar?

If the marketplace provides demand, then someone is going to provide supply, and they'll play with the price point until they find their maximum return on investment. That's called free market capitalism.

You want to get really angry? Do a little research and find out how much it costs to produce a compact disc recording. Include the costs of A&R, recording, mastering, publicity, etc, and I think you'll still be quite surprised. Yet we still buy them, even though we are being taken to the cleaners every time. I believe that is called an inelastic demand<G>!

As far as Napster goes, the bottom line is that a couple of greedy folks (the kind that pander to Wall Street, probably East Coast MBA's) figured out a way to let people share files on their computers and get paid. They didn't need servers, they didn't need content, all they needed was a hacked up copy of NFS, and something to display banners.

They don't share all the income from banner advertising with the artists from whom they effect the theft of intellectual property, or their "customers", the people who think that the world owes them a large music collection. They keep it for themselves, all the while hoping to make the really big kill through venture capital and eventually an IPO.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is a very clever business plan. Sadly, if you consider it ethically, it sucks!

Yes, they have provided a glimpse of some of the innovations that are necessary in this new internetworked world, but they've done so at great cost to the artistic community that we need to provide us with content. That is as short-sighted as managing for quarterly profits.

The music industry as a whole has a long history of taking advantage of the artistic community! Their ranks include some of the most ruthless, unethical business people ever.

But they aren't stupid! They have been looking at ways to profit from the internet for several years. The first time I heard it discussed was at an Audio Engineering Society meeting in (I think) 1994.

The problems are great. Once you open that door you open it to both honest consumers and piratess, and one thing Napster has demonstrated is that many of the former are quite willing to become the later. All the more reason to be cautious.

If you think that is an exageration, the first circuit to unset the SCMS bit in the SP/DIF data stream was available on the net within a couple of months of the release of the first consumer DAT recorder.

The entertainment industry as a whole needs to figure out how to manage the internet before broadband connections become commonplace. This is not up for debate.

Stealing music from artists is wrong, no matter what the rationale, and I still don't see how this can be debated either. Two wrongs still don't make a right!

Fair Use Question
 

I have a question, concerning fair use....I'm thoroughly obfuscated on the subject. Between my father and I, we have hundreds of vynils (for those of you under the age of 25, I mean the big, black, plastic records). Do I have the legal right to download these songs from napster, even though the songs I'm downloading are remastered and taken from CDs? Technically, I'm downloading a higher quality copy of the song than the one I bought, and I'm not sure if that falls under fair use.

Later

Steve

now that's a tricky question!

On the one hand, copyrights cover the song, and mechanical rights cover the performance, so one would think that if either changed it would require re-licensing.

On the other hand, you do have a licensed copy, and (by my understanding, and I am not a lawyer) that entitles you to make copies.

On the third hand, the copies you make are supposed to be from your original.

From a practical point of view, unless your turntable, cartridge, stylus, and records are all in bad shape I'm not sure that an MP3 copy of a CD would actually sound better.

Bill

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly.

The problems with music dissemination was made obvious with Dead Head concert exchanges twenty years ago. IOW music, like newspaper stories, were to become all but public domain just as quickly. Any responsible music industry executive should have seen the writing on the wall a generation ago. They either did not see, or (more likely)they just played ostrich. Either way, they now have the Napster and China problems they deserve.

Again, the victims of this mismanagement are artists. The little people always suffer first when top management is anti-innovation. That is unfortunate but it is a symptom - is not the problem to be solved. The problem is that technology moves on. Not only are new standards for copyright, just conpensation, etc necessay for music BUT the same problem looms for movies and books. The same problem will only fester and reappear in all other media industries.

Old copyright laws worked because the hardware protected the software. Good records could not easily be reproduced. Books were too difficult to pirate. Decent movie copies were difficult to create and replay at home. All this is changing. We even have copy machine technology at home. Good music was reproducible in DAT and now on the internet. DVD movies will soon be easy to reproduce. And yes, even digital paper (discussed in Cellar Mark II) will be here soon. You download a book into your digial paper - something akin to bubble paper. How will the industry address open book exchanges?

IOW the old copyright laws have been subverted by innovation. How can we demand new 'horse and carriage' laws when everyone has automobiles. That is the problem with current copyright laws. They assume the old hardware (vinyl records, printing press, large heavy movie projectors and 8mm movie cameras) will remain the current technology. Top industry leaders fear to face the innovation music (a bad pun).

Recently this got more interesting. The EU has decided that the music industry conspires to keep prices high. The EU will either sue the music industry like the Feds went after IBM and Microsoft - or penalize with their new EU laws.

None of what I say claims that the artists are getting too much. On the contrary. The artists receive so little for their creations - much like the farmer now earns so little from a loaf of bread even though bread prices remain high. There is a problem with the middle men who have not addressed their China, et al problems, who have ignored how new technologies require new business models, who think they will encrypt their problems away and who now run to the government for protection - only demanding protection for their artists when it was convenient.

Napster is but a small example of serious copyright problems not just with music, but coming to all media. China type problems are far more serious. Both Napster and China are indicative of a music industry now, and other medias later, that have refused to address new copyright requirements. Current and future technology make current copyright laws and current business models obsolete.

If we don't address copyright and patent laws, then who will suffer. Not the big industry leaders who created the problem. Unfortunately the first victims will always be the little guys - the artists, writers, etc. You already see such people suffering in the commmercial actors strike (call Jaime Lee Curtis a scum bag for crossing picket lines). The upcoming actors strike again will be necessary to protect the actors. But none of this addresses the problems. These strikes protect the little people from the sypmtoms of a bigger problem. That bigger problem is myopia in the top media corporate offices - myopia which exists because not enough people have been hurt yet. That last sentence should be scary for everyone because, as noted earlier, those who will be hurt most are innocent victims - the artists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Think so? Just quote from one of their articles on a newsgroup and get caught! This happened to a friend, they later waived the penalties, but they did make him sweat it out.

And just for the record... the fact that I can photocopy an article does not place it in the public domain!

You are not making sense here... the Grateful Dead not only permitted taping and trading, they encouraged it. AND, they did not release their copyrights, their music is not yet in the public domain. They have simply chosen to allow their fans to record their live performances and trade those tapes. If you get caught pirating their released recordings you won't get such a friendly result.

Horse-feathers... long ago I could copy an LP onto a cassette and have it sound just as good.

The old copyright laws have not been subverted by new technology, they've been subverted by a generation that thinks that new technology entitles them to anything they want!

The industry does not fear innovation... they simply want to maximize the profit they make from innovation. That is greedy, shortsighted even, but the only fear is that someone else will make more money than they do. Just as soon as they figure out how to leverage the net they will. History demonstrates this.

Not just the EU... the US is also investigating the music industry to see if they have kept CD prices artificially high.

So you still want to solve the problem of piracy in the Pacific Rim, but you don't think that responsible citizens should respect intellectual property law. I don't understand how you make the leap.
If I understand your argument correctly, you want intellectual property laws updated so that piracy is no longer illegal... this addresses the innovations in technology.

It does not, however, address the fact that if we don't protect intellectual property then there will be no motivation to create something new because the reward will be gone.

What we really need to do is educate people that they are not entitled to everything for nothing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

[quote]Originally posted by wst3

Quote:

Originally posted by tw The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly.

Think so? Just quote from one of their articles on a newsgroup and get caught! This happened to a friend, they later waived the penalties, but they did make him sweat it out.

And just for the record... the fact that I can photocopy an article does not place it in the public domain!

No but there is the concept of "fair use", which was an attempt by the court to prevent abuses by copyright holders. If you copy a part (not the entire) of an article for commentary, you are protected. This does not mean that lawyers cannot threaten you, but it does mean that they have a very poor foundation for their case. (disclaimer-I AM NOT A LAYWER).

The past few years has seen content providers in all media attempt to weaken this concept, using the Internet as an excuse. I say excuse because these issues have always existed and were addressed. It is just recent legislation which in many peoples opinions gives too much power to the holder of the copyright. Remember, there is right and wrong on both sides of this issue. Piracy is wrong, but so is the use of trademarks and copyrights in a predatory manner or to establish a trust (remember that trusts are also illegal).

The record industry holds up artists as the losers, but the reality is that most rights are held by corporations. Read Courtney Love's dissection of anti-artist financial practices, or the recent successful (only recently recinded) attempt to define all creative works under contract as "works for hire", which would strip the artist of any rights to work developed while under a contract to a record company, even though they do not work for a salary and through creative financing might never actually get paid.

An interesting example is the sales tax intiatives by states against online purchases. Sears and Roebuck started mail order 100 years ago, and 800 number catalogues have been a major industry for at least 20 years, yet it took the Internet to provide the excuse states needed to assert their sales tax rights.

Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

We've been through the fair use provisions earlier in the thread... and there is simply no way that I can understand how anyone can justify stealing copyrighted material via Napster as fair use.

Fair Use provisions were provided to encourage research and discourse... not free use.

One of the ironies that few seem to appreciate is that the same vultures who would give away other's intellectual property guard their own pretty jealously!

As a "Content Provider", Napster lacks the authorization from the holder of the intellectual property to distribute the intellectual property. They provide the means for these illegal transfers, and they whine that it isn't their fault. They've gone on record, however, stating that their software is their intellectual property, and that they will prosecute anyone who violates their rights.

No one has ever accused the music business of playing fair. But these days they don't own the rights to the vast majority of their libraries... the artists do. Artist's have gotten smarter, and they don't give up nearly as much as they once did. The labels have agreements with the artists for the exclusive right to distribute... otherwise they probably wouldn't care too much about Napster.

My point is that even if Napster hurt the record companies, it hurts the artists more! If an artist does not wish to have their material distributed over Napster then Napster, and the public should respect that.

Actually most artists are savvy enough to hold on to the copyrights... they usually have to give up a portion of the publishing and mechanicals, but the smart ones maintain ownership.

As far as Ms. Love's infamous article... very little was news to anyone who has been around for a while... the record companies have a great scam going, of course they want to keep it that way.

A friend recently pointed out that the current state of affairs is not what bothers most of the executives. While Napster is a problem, it isn't what many thing. The real issues are more likely two-fold: first, Napster seems to make stealing more acceptable to some who might not otherwise steal, and two, stolen or not, a new channel will cut into their overall control. The later is probably what keeps them awake at night.

Funny thing is, new distribution channels are already here. Anyone who has the stamina can establish a publishing company, label, whatever, and distribute their material, for a profit. They don't necessarilly need the web, but it is convenient.

This one was truly ugly. I never expected it to stand, but it says something about the level of greed we as a society have reached that it was even attempted.

I've done work as both a writer for trade journals, and as a composer, and I am quite familiar with the work-for-hire statute. It bugged me a little that the articles I wrote belonged to someone else, but I would never stand for that when it comes to compositions... which is one of the reasons I don't make a living as a composer.

That one has me baffled... I know that e-commerce has turned up the heat, but I was quite surprised to see just how much more interstate commerce occurs as a result of the net.

Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
 

Fair Use provisions were provided because they were part of case law; the statutes were updated to match that. If I quote a NYT article and the NYT sends me a threatening letter, said letter will go straight to file 13. If I don't send it to the EFF instead.

The labels typically still own the copyright on the recording itself. Metallica is an exception there.

If you're going to rely on the law (written by the entertainment industry lobbiests), you're going to have to drop that word "steal". It's a loaded term that copyright law does not use.

The last Supreme Court case on that was Quill, in 1992. It wasn't an Internet case, and the states lost. As they have before.