The Cellar - View Single Post

tw · 01-18-2001, 03:34 AM

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.

01-18-2001, 03:34 AM	#2
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	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.