Feelings on Napster?

Eldragon - I agree with your ideals. But, there are not that many talented individuals that are willing to sacrifice livelyhood for their art. Some may sacrifice for a while only to be eventualy worn down by the financial responsibilities that govern most of us. Many artists stop producing in order to find a more productive way of making a living for themselves and their families. There are of course artists that meet your requirements, but not a lot of them. I collect art. Nothing mainstream just basicaly anything that my wife and myself enjoy and can afford. One of the artists that I collect is your "kind" of artist. She refused a contract to "art up" the largest coffee house chain in the US (we all know their name) because she felt that the committment would somehow change what she did. She is still producing art as always, though without a great deal of financial success. She will be featured in Mary Randolph-Carter's ,author of "American Junk", new book that should be out soon. This will help expose her work, but she will never "sell out". I also collect Haitian art, much of which is motivated/inspired by extreme poverty and by dreams that will never be realized in the artist's lifetime. If you are not familiar with Haitian art, you should check it out, you will enjoy it. On the subject of music. A good friend of mine produced, composed and played on his own jazz/R&b album in the late 80's. He used his life's savings of aprox. $50,000.00 to pay for the musicians and production costs. He ran out of money at the point where final mixing and a few more solos were still needed. Alan Holdsworth donated the use of his home digital studio and even played on one or two of the cuts. We all know where Alan got the money to own his own studio and to afford the leisure time that helped complete the project. The album was "Silent Will" which ended up being one of the top ten jazz albums of the year. To my surprise I received a non-musical credit for donating the use of my car and apartment for three months while I walked to and from work. Without the money/donations the project would have never been completed. I am content in paying for music (of course I also purchase from BMG, thrift shops, yard sales etc.) and knowing that by doing so the music will always be there, and lots of it, whether it be new music or reissues of classics.

My point in this discussion is to try and point out a "legal" aspect to the Napster discussion. I think "legally" this is theft and it is wrong. My views are not a knock on artists and as Dekay pointed out with his example, artists do tend to CREATE first and think about money later. But at some point artists DO have to think about money or they will no longer be able TO do their art (provided they are not independently wealthy). So, to repeat again, I think Napster engages in an illeagal activity and actually hurts artists no help them.

Treyhoss - I agree that it is an injustice but the courts will have to decide whether it is illegal. I beleive that recording music off the radio for personal use is technically illegal, but really hard to police. I did some investigations for ASCAP when I was younger and almost any use of copyrighted material without permission requires that fees be paid to ASCAP on behalf of the copyright owners. Even if it is ruled that the use of Napster is illegal, how can the abuse be stopped as the software is already in cyberspace? Will they have to create a virus that kills Napster? Or is Napster like the original sin and kind of irreversible?

Music, geopolitics and artistic motivation... what a thread! I don't often post on AG, but I do lurk here and enjoy many of the post(er)s. I think anyone who believes that this is a simple case (on either side of the fence) is surely fooling themselves. Napster has created a product which enables people to break the law (piracy is illegal, that is clear). However, Smith & Wesson have also produced products which enable people to break the law. Just about any product can be used to break the law, so one of the initial questions for the court is whether Napster has fair use outside of its illegal use. Clearly, (to me) the answer is yes. Napster allows for the distribution of music in the public domain, which is legal. Now to what degree must the creator of a product go through to insure that the product be used legally (Is placing a warning, like makers of Nitrous Oxide canisters enough?)? What percentage of a products use must be legal (How many tabacco cigs are rolled with EZ-Wider roll-out paper?)? There are more questions, and I don't really have answers to any of them. It is clear to me that the RIAA had to file suit (if you do not protect your copyright now, under American law you lose some of the right to protect it later). It is also clear that it is a complete waste of time. No matter how you feel about the ethics of Napster, it is an outdated technology (and less than two years old!!!) Gnutella offers the same functionality of Napster (users can exchange songs) without the burden of a central database. So who will the RIAA sue to stop Gnutella? The authors of the original source have stopped working on it and have received absolutely no gains from their work. I doubt the RIAA wants to target individual users of the software (suing your market is not a good way to generate good will in the marketplace). They could go after ISP's for being conduits, but that would set some dangerous precedents against privacy rights. So then what? Electronically pirated music is here to stay, and the RIAA needs to come to terms with that fact as soon as possible so that it can develop a strategy which allows it to maintain its profitability under the constraints of reality. As long as it persues strategies which ignore that fact (like suing individual software developers) it will fail to meet its goals.

There is a disturbingly growing proportion of society willing to openly disregard the boundaries that define what is "yours" and what is "mine". Claims such as "Electronically pirated music is here to stay..." are unfortunately indicative of that attitude. This trend is driving the music industry, and others, to actions that will be inflicted upon us all. Don't be deluded into believing the music industry is making hollow threats. All we've heard so far is the rattling of swords. Wait until they really get moving. They will wield all their considerable clout if that's what it takes to protect their best interests. The suit against Napster is just the first volley; look forward to additional filings regardless of the outcome of this case. Prepare for widespread watermarking and who knows what else because it's only a matter of time. Their lip service aside, the music industry won't care if copy protection is audible on higher-end systems. If watermarking has a negative effect on what they consider to be a small audience, so be it. Better to lose a little than risk it all, right? They're already using their lobbying power to push for statutes that further restrict users' rights while bolstering their own. Care to guess who will ultimately pay for these laws, lawsuits and "advancements" in the end? Kind of ironic, isn't it? Don't despair, though. With any luck someone will introduce a special box to filter the watermark from the sound signal. The appropriate technology will, of course, have to be licensed from the music industry, so it won't come cheap. Just think. With higher resolution systems we will get to pay for it twice. Once with the music and again with the hardware. Oh, joy to us all! But enough ranting for now. Here's a hearty salute to all the innocent little pirates making this wonderful step forward in technology possible. Oh, sorry. Meant to wave with all five fingers, not just the one...