Did you catch the MTV VMA's tonight?  Lars did some kind of
Anti-Napster commercial.  In the skit, there's a kid downloading a
Metallica MP3 with Napster, and Lars walks into his bedroom.  The kid
tells Lars that he's not stealing, he's "sharing", so Lars starts
slapping Napster stickers on all of his stuff and hauling it away.
At the end, the kid is left with nothing, and Lars slaps a Napster
sticker on his girlfriend's ass, and leaves with her.

The tagline was something along the lines of "Napster: Sharing isn't
so great when it's your stuff."

...

I think this sketch would've been more realistic if the Napster
sticker instantaneously duplicated whatever it was attached to, so
that both the borrower and the lender had a copy.

...

I also think that OpenNap and Gnutella need more press, so that the
RIAA doesn't have anyone to sue.

...

I also also think that Lars should go fuck himself.  I wish I was a
Metallica fan, so that I could destroy everything Metallica that I
own, and send it all back to them in a nice little package with a 
Napster sticker on the front of it.

126 responses total.

Heh.  Thanks for the MTV report, willard.  I've been working on a small 
essay on copyright and maybe it will end up here, since the previous 
Napster item is turning into a Generic Online Political Argument.

It's idiotic to say that all the kid was doing was making a copy of 
something Lars has his own copy of anyway so what's the big deal.  What 
the kid was stealing was Lars's royalties -- you know, his income, his 
livelihood, his means of support.  You could -- and in fact, I do -- 
say "So what?"  But from Lars's standpoint I imagine this is pretty 
serious stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure Lars has a had a hard time putting food on the table
since Napster came along.  You're right.

I didn't say that, and I wouldn't care if Lars were starving to death.  
Nevertheless, stealing from a gazillionaire who made his money selling 
shitty music to kids who don't know any better is still stealing.  You 
do understand that, don't you?

What if I make a copy of my Metallica CD and give it to my mom?  Or
better yet, what if I tape some Metallica songs off the radio, and
make a copy of that tape for my friends?  This is fair use, no?

You mean a CD you bought?  With money?  [snicker]

Look, if you think it's okay to steal from Lars, just say so.  I think 
it's not just okay, it's praiseworthy.  

Yes, let's pretend I bought a Metallica CD, and I made a copy for my
mom.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Now let's pretend I made copies of all of my CD's, and shared them
with all of my friends -- is that fair use?  I don't think the law
says you're only allowed to copy X number of CD's and share them with
Y number of friends.

I also don't think the law defines 'friend'.  Just because I don't
know the guy that is connecting to my PC and downloading all of my
CD's doesn't mean he's not my friend.

Hey, if you think all of that makes it okay for you to steal from Lars, 
go for it, d00d.  I won't lift a finger to stop you.

I think the hypothetical issue, that I am hearing from people, is that we are
stealing (we I mean those of us who do worship Napster) from the artist's
royalties.  But to be prefectly frank, they dont' get THAT much in royalties
anyway.  It's the distributing company who makes the money and who are getting
screwed.  

Also, another point, is that "One person can buy a CD and the whole country
and download it, so there will be loss of profits and a collapse of the music
industry"

Oh man.  What bull.  Same argument as when blank audio tapes came out.  They
are basing this on an idea, and not the actual application.  Personally, I
have gotten some wonderful stuff from Billy Holliday and Louis Armstrong, and
other hard to find stuff.  I got Bill Cosby's "Chocolate Cake For Breakfast"
which until this past year, wasn't on CD, it was out of print.  

I think that Lars is blowing this out of porportion.  I think he's a
hippocrite, since they advocated bootlegging up until they were so hot they
got on Lollapalooza.  Then they figured out that they were rich and
bottlegging hurt their proffits.  It's BS.  I'm gonna download.  And rip my
own MP3's.  But even though I love the older Metalica songs, I won't download
a one, that's my contribution to Lars' PMS.

Now, see, there you guys go with the rationalizations again.  You're 
only stealing a little bit from Lars, you're just screwing the 
distribution company, you're doing this, you're doing that.  

Look, if you have to convince yourself that you're not "really" 
stealing before you steal, then you have serious conscience issues.  If 
you don't work through those, you're going to be wasting way too much 
energy devising these bullshit rationalizations.  Just admit you're 
stealing, AND DO IT!  Stop being wusses, fer chrissake.

It is totally stealing. Kind of like how folks steal software which is
something I have done. There is an arguement that if no one ever stole
software, it would be much cheaper *shrug* I suppose one could also make the
argument that if folks keep stealing on napster, things will get more
expensive for the honest folks. 

So making a "tape" for someone when you create a mix is stealing?  I'm trying
to get where this is truly a theft issue?  I am getting a song from someone
else.  Same as making a mix tape or a mix cd with your burner, correct?

that's still stealing, just is minor theft. <grins>  I like md's 
point.  Hey, I've downloaded mp3s, though not from Napster, and have 
made use of the mp3s Sarah downloaded from Napster.  Of course it's 
stealing, but I can accept that.

        Sharing isn't cool when it's your stuff, but there's a bit of
difference between somone stealing your computer and someone stealing a
banana.

Sharing information isn't quite the same as sharing objects, though.

What if somebody could make an exact copy of computer?  You've still got your
computer (let's pretend that it isn't full of private stuff).  Were you stolen
from?  Maybe.  If almost nobody was in the business of selling cheaply copied
computers, but the software to do so was free, what do you suppose most people
would do?  

If you're looking for an analogy, it would be someone buying a CD, 
making five million copies of it, and placing them all in a big box in 
Times Square with a sign saying "Take one."

I hear another "tragedy of the commons". Just because each copy made
is just a *little bit* of theft, it is not thought significant by
some people compared to the benefit they reap from the theft. That is
used to justify everyone doing it. Of course, if everyone did it, there
would not be an industry from which to steal. 

We hear that claim often -- if everyone steals, there would be no 
incentive to create new work.  In music, at least, history tells us 
that is not so.  There was no effective copyright system in the era
which gave us Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and all the great musicians
of the past.   Pirate editions were common; in opera, rival prouduction
companies might send scribes into theatres to try to note down the 
music for a particularly hot show.   

Music predates copyright; if copyright were to end tomorrow, there would
still be music next week.

It isn't theaft if the group who made the song put it on there for people to
download and listen to.

It is theft if I buy the CD and put it on napster so all the people can
download it for free.

It isn't stealing if I make a mix and play it for myself adn my freinds.

It is stealing if I make a mix and then sell it for a profit to people on the
street.

I think the question of Napster is that they are making a profit by letting
people share music over the net.  If they weren't making money (somehow) they
would not be in trouble.

I think it a much better idea if each artist were to set up his website so
that they could cahrge you for the download.

Is it stealing to listen to music on the radio?  How about if you record 
what you hear on the radio?  Is that stealing if you record the 
commercials, too?  Is it stealing if you erase the commercials?

Are you stealing when you rent a videotape?

With software -- if you go over to a friend's computer and use his 
software, is that stealing (from the software company)?  If my whole 
family uses a copy of a program I bought and installed on the computer, 
are the rest of them stealing it?  If I buy one copy of a program, and 
install it on two computers, but I'm the only one who uses it (because 
the kids like to play games on the main computer), have I stolen a copy? 
If I install a program on my laptop, and it is never installed on 
another computer, but the laptop gets passed around to 24 people who all 
use it at separate times for an hour per day, did 23 of us steal it?  
What if I installed 24 separate copies on the laptop, so each of us can 
use a separate environment, did I need to buy 24 copies in order not to 
be stealing?

Copyright law in the electronic age is not straightforward.  I am not 
convinced that software, video and music "piracy" are unethical.  The 
word "piracy" is a marketing term, not one that is concerned with 
ethics.

This response has been erased.

In each case, it depends upon the terms of the license you implicitly
agree to when you purchase the product. For example, you cannot *own*
most software - you can only buy a license to use it. At the other
extreme, the radio station has purchased a license to play the music,
but that does not give the listener a license to make a copy. That
infringement can only be detected, of course, if the listener distributes
(or sells) copies and gets caught. There are many ways in which these
licenses can be infringed without much chance of getting caught. They
are infrinements nevertheless, and honest people would not do it.

Re #18: you are quite right. Copyright law, and patent law too, were
developed when the industrial revolution made it possible to mass produce
items. Since an idea or a work only occurs once, it was easy for others
to just take the idea or work and make copies. This could give the
inventor or author very little return for their invention or work,
*which stifled innovation and creation*. Therefore laws were created
to give the inventor or author exclusive rights for a limited period
of time, but enough for the inventor or author to obtain a return on
their effort if they continued to be diligent. 

Many inventors and authors are persons whose motivations lie primarily, or
initially, in the creative act itself. But others also need to support
themselves. "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and all the great musicians
 of the past" were in this category, and many *suffered financially* while
pursuing their drive to create. Mozart was a classic example, who died
pennyless, and whose body was dumped in a pauper's grave. Is that a
civilized way to "recognize" creative people? Patents and copyrights are
better.

(Many of those great musicians, by the way, survived by having *patrons*,
wealthy and powerful individuals that wanted what the musicians could
create. This is not a good system if society wants more of such creativity

A number of people have suggested that the future of the music 
business lies in exactly the patron model.   In the past, the patrons 
were the few rich and powerful people who held all the spare money.
In the democratic era, the patrons will have to be the ordinary people.
 
I know that there are musicians who I love who I would be happy to send
a $5, $10, $20 tip to every year.   Say some folk musician I like, 
a solo performer, can have 1000 dedicated fans who will send her
$20 bucks a year.  That's the start of a livable income.
Such a performer probably gets less than that from current CD sales.
 
Models like this are being seriously discussed in various online 
publications.  

----------

Rane, let's concede for a moment that Napster-style file trading is 
theft.  What can be done about it?    The options seem to be:
    1) Legally require that all computer and network systems 
       recognize and block illicit copying.  Michael Eisner of Disney
       is demanding this solution.  It does not seem to be 
       very technically feasible.
    2) Start feeding hundreds or thousands of middle-class kids 
       into either the civil or criminal legal system.
       We would have to have a War on Copyright Criminals on a 
       scale roughly equal to the War on Drug Users.

       And this becomes a nightmare for the music copyright industry,
       because a substantial number of the people being prosecuted will 
       be their best customers.

Exactly my argument against keeping the notion of "intellectual property" in
our laws. It makes trouble with powers-that-be way too easy to get into, if
persued seriously. It was at least tolerable when you had to have an expensive
printing press, or else go through some other effort and expense, in order
to "steal" the protected material. But now the concept steps on more toes than
its benefits are worth.

There will be a lot less "intellectual property" created if the creators
cannot make a living from their work. This is why the patent process
was invented - to promote invention. If you want to have lots of new
music created, you have to protect the investment and living of the 
musicians.

... but by that standard, Rane, the current system is not suceeding
very well, except for a small number of megastars.  Currently the 
system protects the investment and living of the five (soon to be four)
music companies who control the distribution system.
 
This is why musicians are quite split on Napster.

Re #25:
    Yes, there will be a lot less "intellectual property" created. I would
rather have this than a system of laws which a large part of the population
runs afoul of.

actually, according to the article in the Atlantic Monthly's sept. issue,
musicians are so screwed by their record companies vis a vis *their*
intellectual property that any new system couldn't help but be an improvement.
For example, the musicians have to pay for the production, distribution, and
advertising for their records (unlike a book's author, who may or may not make
money on any given book but usually doesn't end up in DEBT to the record
company!) and if they aren't the songwriters for that particular song, they
don't get royalties for any performances. It's amazing that anyone actually
goes into music. 

Heh.  The political situation for the music industry is quite grim:
they are going into this battle with many of their suppliers (the 
artists) and many of their customers cheering for their destruction.

        The technology exists today for Lars to get his 5.7 cents for the
one song the kid downloaded.  Instead of persueing that revenue avenue,
Lars wants us not to think of how he and other artists can get payment 
for their works when the media and distribution costs are borne by the 
end user.

I just went and skimmed the Atlantic Monthly article online.
http://www.theatlantic.com     Wow.  It's even more brutal than the 
celebrated Courtney Love piece.  

I'd be very happy to contribute $x directly to artists I like.  Some long-term
favorites would be better off that way than with the pennies they get from
rereleases ("record club" stuff might not result in *any* money to the
artist!).  When possible I buy stuff from independent artist's web sites; I've
done this for Pete Townshend, Aimee Mann, and Jello Biafra.  In some cases,
such as the Sluggy Freelance web comic, I don't really want any of the
T-shirts.  I'd rather just send $20 in return for the ongoing comic.

Do you have any of the Sluggy Freelance books?  I don't, because I'm not all
that into the strip.  A friend of mine does have one, and says it's
interesting because the book makes something noticable that the online
strips don't -- that Pete Abrams often cuts and pastes frames, then changes
a few details, instead of hand-drawing each one.  To me that seems a bit
cheap, but obviously the appeal of the strip isn't the artwork.  It's the
fact that it pushes geek-culture buttons.

The artwork is pretty good.  I don't really want a book either, though.  I'm
into one of those "don't make me store any more *stuff*" periods.

I'm hoping Rane will get back to the second part of my resp:23 ::
if downloading music from the Internet is theft, what do you propose
to do about it?

If it's Lars you're stealing from, I'll be cheering you on.

Opps, you were asking Rane.  Sorry.

Re #35: I don't propose to do anything about it. I'm not the one violating
the law, or responsible for its enforcement. However I don't buy the
*selfish* arguments in #23 that the buyers are the ones that should have
the sole say on what they will "donate" after they take what they want.
Most people will take what they want and give nothing, when it is so
convenient to do so. I much prefer the bargaining mode, where the owner of
the property can set a price and the buy can say what they will pay, and
then they negotiate in the market - the usual process by which prices are
established. Just stealing the goods isn't a very ethical end-run around
this process. 

The failure of most shareware to make much money is proof that the
"patronage" system doesn't really work in the real world.

My arguments in #23 and elsewhere aren't "selfish," they are observations
of what is happening.  The number of Napster users is guesstimated
at 20 million and growing explosively.  Aimster, a similar program 
designed to piggyback on AOL Instant Message, has been out for one 
month and the news reports estimate that it has already got 
one million users.
 
Here's my predictions for the near term: remember, Rane, these are 
observations, not endorsements.  I expect Napster, Inc., to get 
whacked.  I expect that it won't make any difference.  About a year 
from now, the business model for music on the Internet is going to be
something like the marijuana business in the 1970s, and 30-50 million
Internet users will be downloading music for free from a variety of 
guerrilla sources.  The next battle for the copyright holders will 
be to overturn the DMCA immunity which the ISPs have for the 
copyright violations of their users, which will be a direct attack
on the economic viability of the Internet.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss