thatch
Member
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Dallas-area, Texas
Posts: 82 |
Here's a forward of something I got a couple of months ago from George Burns, the HTML Goodies guy:
quote:
Received from HTML Goodies Express (http://www.htmlgoodies.com)
Original Source: Goodies Express -the great Napster debate, and more! 7/31/2000.
************************************************************
HTMLGOODIES EXPRESS (tm)
July 31, 2000--Newsletter #91
The HTMLGOODIES Express for July 31, 2000
is a service of EarthWeb Inc., a public company.
For information about our company, please go to
http://www.ewbx.com.
************************************************************
Please visit http://www.htmlgoodies.com
************************************************************
Featured this week:
* Joe's take on the great Napster debate
Greetings, Weekend Silicon Warriors,
Usually I am a week ahead on my newsletters, but now and
again something pops up that makes me want to hurry up and
push out an opinion. The Napster court case is just such a
topic. I'll state my opinion right up front so that you can
get a handle on where I am coming from.
I am not a fan of how Napster works in its present
configuration. I think it's wrong. I think it is people
circumventing the monetary side of music.
No, I do not think Napster should be disbanded, but I do
think it should be set up a little differently than it is
right now. I like the idea of instant music. I love the
thought of creating my own CD by just choosing the songs I
want. Yes, I know there are sites where I can choose the
songs right now. I just don't really want any of the songs
that are offered. I would like to choose from current songs
and make compilations. Napster would allow me to do that.
The problem is that someone has to pay for that compilation.
As it stands right now (things may change by the time you
read this), Napster would have been shut down today
(Saturday) at 3 PM, but an appeals court has granted a stay
allowing the site to remain up and running. The Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) will now appeal and
take it one court level up to the full 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. This decision/appeal process will go on a
few more times until a final ruling stands by a higher court
either refusing to hear the case or the Supreme Court gets a
crack at it.
So as it stands, Napster stays alive and kicking, and people
are going nuts trying to download every piece of music that
they can get their hands on. The source of their music may
die soon, so they are getting what they can while they can.
That makes sense to me.
In this newsletter I wanted to offer a rebuttal to some of
the more prevalent pro-Napster arguments I am hearing through
the news media. Let me state again that I am not against
Napster, I just think it has to be run differently to become
legal. I'll get to my suggestions for new business practices
before the newsletter is over.
1. "Napster is just allowing us to get at the music unknown
artists put on the Web."
If that were the case, then Napster wouldn't be in any
trouble. The original concept, to allow people access to
music that the recording artists themselves make freely
available on the Web, is great. If the people who used
Napster, or Napster itself, had made a point of keeping an
eye out for copyrighted music and took steps to stop people
from trading it, they might not be in this position. They
did not. They knowingly allowed people to pirate songs and
trade them freely.
2. "Napster is not to blame. It's the people that are
pirating the music that should be prosecuted."
Maybe they will be. Napster, by virtue of its use of a
central server system to track, search, and trade copyrighted
files, provided the ability to break the law so they are
seen, at least, as accomplices to a crime. One cannot provide
a method of doing wrong, assist in the act, and then step
away expecting to be seen as innocent of the crime.
3. "Why should I be forced to pay $15 to $20 for a CD that
only costs two dollars to make?"
This is an argument that is guilty of the sin of omission.
First off, no one is forcing you to pay anything. If you
think the price is too high, then listen to the radio or
watch the music channels on TV. They play all the hits. If
you don't want to spend the money, then don't. Yes, I know
that's not a very viable response and I knew it wouldn't be.
It was simply my knee-jerk reaction to a person who feels
they are being "forced" to spend money.
The real problem I have with this argument is that it's
simply not true. Yes, the materials and process to create a
CD itself may very well be only two dollars, but that's not
taking into account the numerous other costs that go into
supporting and promoting an artist. There are so many other
costs that must be factored into a CD.
Still, I agree with you that CD prices are high and that
profits are huge. That leads me to my next argument.
4. "These artists are rich. They have enough money, so I
don't feel bad about taking some of their music for free."
Well, how you feel is fairly unimportant to this case, so
let's focus on the fact that artists and record producers
"have enough money". Let's say the cash flow was to you.
How would you like it if, at any point, someone else decided
you had enough money? I don't care if you make $6 an hour or
$6000 an hour. At what point in your financial dealings does
someone else get to make the decision that you have enough
money? I make a fairly good living writing for HTML Goodies
and teaching, but I would never turn down a raise. I would
go ballistic if all of a sudden someone informed me that I
had made enough money and that I can just live on what I
have right now or on a greatly reduced sum because someone
else says so.
Many people consider wealth something that should be limited
at some point. As long as the wealth is made legally, I have
no trouble with amounts. If you do, then remember that when
you become well off and reach a certain point...stop taking
money.
5. "The only way to keep file-sharing technology from moving
forward is to force us all to return to using 486 computers
with 14.4-Kbps modems."
This is an age-old argument that basically goes, "you can't
stop us so just let us do it". That's just not an argument
at all. You mean that if a large enough group of people
decide to break the law, that the law should be changed to
accommodate what people are doing? If 50% of all drivers
decided that they will now begin driving 100 miles an hour,
should the law be changed because the police will simply
never be able to catch everyone?
I can understand this form of protest if there is a great
injustice being done, but no matter how you frame the RIAA,
it isn't violating anyone's civil rights by selling CDs.
6. "Cassettes did not hurt the recording industry, videotapes
did not hurt the movie industry, and music trading will not
hurt the music industry."
Again, this is not a viable argument. The advent of computers
has allowed copies of songs to flourish. Instead of a song
being copied onto a cassette a few times or videotape being
copied a few times, now one copy of a song can be copied
literally thousands of times per day and distributed with
great speed. This, I believe does have the ability to harm
the music industry. I need only copy the music once and post
it. An hour later that song could be in the hands of 10
thousand people. That's a whole lot different than the
technology of copying available through cassette and video
(which is also illegal if not for private use). In addition,
the there could only be so many copies of a videotape or
cassette. After a few "generations" the sound quality would
be so bad, it wouldn't be worth listening to. A digital
copy created today can be copied, the copies can be copied,
and so on, with no fidelity loss. The variables have changed.
Comparing the process of ten years ago against the technology
of today is like comparing apples to oranges.
7. "Napster acts as merchandising. People hear the music and
will then go buy the CD."
There may be some truth in this right now because the vast
number of people using Napster need to be in front of their
computers to hear the music they swap, and that's not very
convenient. Buying the CD does free people to listen to the
music in their car or on headphones. If allowed to roll on
unchecked though, this will soon not be the case. I am
starting to see numerous gadgets for sale that take the MP3
files and record them to various portable devices. There
are right now Walkman-style MP3 players and portable CD
players that run the files. Technology will only get better
and within a year will end the merchandising effect of Napster.
8. "Napster is just like radio."
AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUGH!
This is the argument that just drives me straight up a tree.
Napster is no more like radio than it is nuclear physics.
However, that statement does hold within it the answer to
the Napster problems.
First off, let's look at a song on Napster. Someone does buy
the CD. There, a commission is paid to the artist. That
person copies the song, posts it for all to copy and the
money trail to the artist and recording company stops. Now
radio...
A song is sent to radio and radio plays it. But what some
of you may not know is that radio stations pay fees to be
able to play that song. Most commercial music is licensed
by one of two firms, ASCAP or BMI. Yes, there are always
songs sent to radio stations that do not have representation.
Local bands would send me tapes all the time when I was a
DJ. However, the majority of the music is licensed and my
radio stations would pay fees to ASCAP and BMI. Radio
stations can either pay what's known as a blanket fee,
which is a flat rate, or a fee based upon what songs you
actually played.
Either way, twice a year we would send three days of our
music play lists off to the licensing firms. Those firms
would in turn tally the number of all plays a recording
artist received, and pay them royalties from it. The more
you were played, the more you got paid. Before the advent
of computerized play lists, I remember having to write down
every song I played, the artist, the authors, the label,
and a few other things. Ugh. What a pain. It even goes as
far as music used in commercials. I did the voice work for
one car company that had the Bachman Turner Overdrive song
"Let it Roll" behind their commercial. We had to note that
when sending in the forms.
So, as you can see, radio and Napster are pretty darn
different, but using radio as a model, I think we can alter
Napster a bit and actually make it viable...and cheap.
My suggestion is that Napster would run much more like a
radio station. To begin with Napster must be made to pay
fees on the music ASCAP and BMI licenses. These fees will,
of course, change depending on how many copies of a certain
song move through the central Napster server. Yes, Napster
can keep tabs on all of this - how do you think Metallica
received the names of all the people that downloaded their
music?
Now, some of you are thinking that if Napster has to pay
the fees for everyone that swaps the music, they will go
out of business. That's true. It's too much money for one
site to have to pay. What will need to happen is that
people who wish to use Napster will pay a fee structure.
An account should be set up attached to a credit card that
keeps track of what songs a person swaps. Each time the
person swaps a song, they should pay a small amount. I base
this one what I know my radio stations paid in fees.
The amount will certainly be small too. (At least it should
be if everybody plays fair) At this point you are just
paying on the royalty plus a small bit for manufacturing.
You've eliminated a middleman. The music industry would in
effect be selling directly to the consumer. I could go in,
set up an account, and swap ten of my favorite songs and
burn my CD, legally, for a few bucks. I get the music,
Napster pays the royalties, and everyone is happy. Well,
almost everyone.
Of course some people will have a fit at this point because
even two or three bucks will be too much for them and they
will start trading around Napster. Fine. Napster will be
legal and those people will be the ones the RIAA will go
after.
Napster could be the central database for legal music
distribution. Those artists that post their music to the
Web freely should be kept separate from those songs that
are not. That way, people could swap that free music to
their hearts' content without touching the fee-based music.
In addition, once Napster gets the recording industry on
their side, the MP3s that will be swapped or bought could
be far better quality. You could have numerous versions of
songs. You may be able to start swapping outtakes or first
takes that people never get to hear. Maybe you don't want
the dirty language - fine. Just grab the version that's
been edited. This could be great.
If Napster sticks to this fight and remains on the same
course that it has chosen, it's going to lose and the site
will be shut down. My suggestion is rather than dig in your
heels and fight a losing battle, start to work with the
people that represent the music.
Make music something that can be downloaded legally for only
the royalty fee plus a small percentage to cover manufacturing.
I would think you could get a song for pocket change if the
RIAA plays fair. That's where we'd see some true colors, huh?
If Napster decided to try a deal like this, would the RIAA
attempt to boost the price so that a CD created online would
cost the same as one in the store? I hope not. That would be
unfair.
If all play fair, I think online music could be one of the
greatest ideas yet because, in all honesty, I hardly ever
like an entire album anymore. I just want one song from this
group, two from that group, and another one from another group.
This would be perfect.
Maybe we could even get back to the 1950s style of music
producing when singles were the thing and groups that only
had one song were given a chance because the medium allowed
it. That might see the end of albums that have one great
song and twelve losers. The 45 could be king again. That
would be great.
Well, the "45" CD.
Hope it helps whichever side you're on. I've got more if you want it...
__________________
Tim
<A HREF="http://vbq1.tripod.com/"> </A>
|
12-08-2000 12:37 AM
)
Here's a good one...
Re: Here's a good one...
I like Napster
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]