Feelings on Napster?

fpeel - excellent post. I would point out, however, that there are two arguments being made. One is based in law and is probably more relevant to what happens to Napster. The other is based in ethics and so will probably have no tangible effects (grin). I think we agree 100% on the law of the matter, although it's my personaly opinion that Napster has legitamate legal uses and so should not be punished for people abusing their product (much like I believe that we shouldn't oulaw baloons just because some people like to suck nitrous). But I don't think that you can make a purely ethical argument while just appealing to civil and criminal law. Ralph - Crumb is a product of his own self destruction and not a very enlightening example. If he wanted more than $600.00 for his wok, then he should have charged more for it. As far as your Cheap Thrills LP is concerned, from what I remember the RIAA will allow you to make a copy of it to listen to in your garage as long as you don't give the copy away or try to sell it.

As other's have noted "lawful" and "legal" are not necessarily related to "ethical." That this is so true really bites, doesn't it? I once commented to a trial judge that what was transpiring in his court room wasn't justice. Not the expected rebuff, his response left a strong impression of coming from someone who had just been reminded of a lesson learned long ago, but one they still found disgusting. "Don't confuse the law and justice. They are not always the same." I still vividly remember suddenly seeing him as a new, still wet behind the ears, going to change the world attorney who had suddenly learned one of the sad realities of the world. Years later it obviously saddened him to inform me of this fact. But it is a fact, so let's not confuse what our ethics say is right and on which side the law falls.

To me the proper use of Napster-like services is allowing access to music not otherwise readily available for which the use of has been *authorized by the owner* for download. Used in that vein it would be a boon to the market and struggling artists alike. Sadly, that is not how it is normally used. The founders of Napster even offered that perspective in their initial defense. To their chagrin, log files from their company showed that even they were guilty of downloading music primarily from artists like Madonna and the Rolling Stones, not niche titles or arcane artists.

In specific response to Cornfedboy, I am *not* clear about Napster's position relative to the law except from an ethical perspective and know that doesn't mean squat when sorting out the legalities. The answers to that laundry list of issues will come from the courts. Current law is apparently equally unclear on the issue and will be until precedence is established or new statutes are passed and tested.

My belief is the courts will find primarily with RIAA because a) doing otherwise will create a terrific mess with respect to existing copyright law and b) no judge wants to have a decision overturned by a higher court. It is a given that the RIAA will persist until they win, be it with this case or another or by pressuring Congress to pass statutes protecting their property. The Napster case could indeed be just the tip of the iceberg.

Regarding the reference to David Byrne, that's a case of mistaken identity. Any sembalance my words might have had to a pre-existing work was purely coincidental...

Regardless what is decided in the Napster case this is the beginning of a new era in music distibution. The RIAA I believe will do what they can to prevent this but will eventually fail. They will fail because the new technology which allows us to download files will march forward. It's interesting that many music artists see themselves as progressives and support forward thinking concepts. This is in direct juxtaposition to their statements regarding Napster. The artists are for change and not for change. Hmmm, very interesting. Of course they would like to collect every dime possible from their efforts. Do you think any of the artists against Napster are unfairly compensated? Right! Do you think any of the major labels are unfairly compensated? Yeah, right! Both these parties have made billions of dollars since the advent of CD's. Even now with the ability to copy Cd's at will the revenues keep rolling in. If Napster is forced to charge fees for their services there will be a new generation of "napsters" which could reside offshore and be out of reach of US laws. The RIAA taking down Napster will not stop the progress of this technology. If Napster charged fee's I doubt that they will have many subscribers. The sound quality will have to vastly improve before the majority will pay. This may eventually happen, but in the meantime let the downloads be free. These downloads are really just sonic samples of what is available on the CD. At the same time we are on the advent of the launch of DVD-A, and SACD, both of which offer sonically superior sound to CD's and are light years ahead of MP files. In my opinion that's all MP3,s are good for, samples. If I like what I hear then I go out and get the CD. I can't understand why the labels don't see this as a great marketing tool to actually sell more CD's. I can think of many times I have passed on a CD because I know what 1 track sounds like and without hearing or sampling the others, I am reluctant to shell out the bucks for the whole thing. The Grateful Dead are a prime example of the business model I suggest. Way back at the beginning the band decided that they supported the fans taping the live shows. What this lead to was the biggest following of fans ever, in the history of any band. Fan's = revenue. They may not have sold as many studio albums as others but they grossed more for their live concerts than any other music group in history, even Michael Jackson! Not to mention sales of tye-dyes, beannie bears, jerry-dolls, stickers, and just about anything you can imagine. This advanced thinking has led to even greater sales today, long after Jerry's passing. GD Productions now has it's own record label (not a small feat for any band) and is receiving great success from current sales of live recordings made over a period of 30 years. Currently Dick's Pick's has 20 release's! This is in light of the fact many of the fan's already had a bootleg of the same show. But the promise of greater sonics keeps them coming back. Folk's that have hundreds upon hundreds of live tapes are buying up the Dick's Pick's like hotcakes. This is 5 years after the leaders passing! How can this be? Because the fan's are so grateful for all the free music that the band made available over the years. Everytime I buy I new "Pick" I happilly hand over the money. I can't say that about any other band I listen to. My favorite line and the reason Dick's Pick's keeps me comming back, "We used to play for silver now we play for live!" I guess this is why no matter if Metallica or these other bands against Napster have great albums, I will avoid them like the plague. I guess it's clear what they play for, not the fans, not the music, not the fun, but the MONEY!!! Sorry but I can't support that value in music. I guess the Dead have had a more profound effect on my thinking then they could have even imagined. I guess they also ruined it for all the greedy, conservative musician's out there that I will gladly never hear. One last thing. It is interesting that the labels with the new release of DVD-A and SACD have a chance to change what they think was the biggest mistake of the CD launch back in the 80,s...access to the master tape. Notice the delayed launch of DVD-A. This has mainly been because of their obsessive need to watermark the master. This has inevitably resulted in poorer sonics and prevents us the consumer from hearing the true potential of the new medium. This is a sad case and really too bad for us audiophiles. This may also result in this new medium being still-born..I sure hope so. It just might teach them a lesson. I urge you all to boycott any DVD-A's which have been watermarked. This may make them think twice in the future. A writer recently commented that watermarking is like claiming ownership of a clear pool of water by peeing in it! Sony on the otherhand has just removed access to the master alltogether by not providing a digital out and ensuring there is no access to the decoded SACD signal. This is a better method of preventing copying but is still a disapointment. I will not be rushing out anytime soon to upgrade my CD player that't for sure. But at least Sony hasn't compromised the sonic truth by peeing in the pool. Just a little more than my 2 cents.

Napster is for children that don't have jobs. I own high end audio, napster downloads sound like crap on mine. Besides I can get online, order a CD in minutes and have it deliverd to my home. So figure if I make 20 Bucks an hour, I've jist wasted 3 or 4 hours downloading a CD not counting the time to make sure it,s ok. I would rather make 20 bucks an hour.

For me it's simple. Giving away what you don't own is theft! It is antithetical to America and precisely why the USSR isn't around any more. Napster stole the essential property rights of others in order to "gain" for themselves. Whether they "gained" directly in cash, indirectly in business, or psychologically through ego gratification the real looser(victim) is and was the writer, producer, artist and middlemen whose livelihoods are based on the production, sale and use of the music.

Esoteric dissertations as to conventions of use in tapes and cds are interesting. However, to me, unless the original is paid for...IT'S THEFT! I like paying for what I get and I like others to do it also. I like my children to do it as well. It's simple, clean and satisfying.
To me there is no analogy to demo listening in music shops, where the music is for sale and the demo a licensed copy.

I am reminded about a conversation I had with the head actuary for IRS about twenty years ago when he said, " I have heard lots of rational discourses of illogical premises."

It was true then. It's true now.