Thomas Middelhoff, the CEO of the media conglomerate Bertelmann, picked a 
very public platform to deliver the news about Napster.  At the 
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Middelhoff announced that 
Napster would begin charging its users by July.  Middelhoff further 
announced that a digital rights management system would become part
of the Napster experience.

The Napster corporation seemed somewhat confused by this announcement,
and at first I chalked it up a clueless executive sounding off 
on the world stage.  I didn't see how digital rights management was
going to be incorporated into the Napster file sharing model; maybe 
there was some idea that they would put some sort of wrapper around the 
MP3 file as it was delivered to your computer?

Then it struck me: first, Bertelsmann thinks that the $50 million
it loaned Napster last fall gives it control.  Second, Bertelsmann 
wants Napster's brand name and its 30-50 million users, but 
file sharing does not figure into Bertelsmann's plans.  
Bertelsmann's Napster will give users songs from central 
servers, not from everybody's hard disks.  

Essentially, Bertelsmann wants to take their failed BMG music 
download system, spiff it up a bit, and call it Napster.
I'm skeptical that this will go very far with the existing 
Napster user base.

I found confirmation of Bertelsmann's view in a recent issue 
of "Entertainment Weekly," in an article on the availability of 
racist hate songs through Napster.  In that article, Bertelsmann 
senior VP Frank Sarfeld talks about "in the future, when 
Bertelsmann and Napster, in a new musiness model, will limit 
distribution to 'licensed music from major record labels.'"

((No indie labels on Napster?  Hmm, I wonder if there's grounds for 
antitrust action here.))

Bertelsmann hasn't gotten any of the other major labels to sign up 
for a Bertelsmann-controlled Napster.

134 responses total.

    ((( Winter Agora 124  <--->  Music 294 )))

I forgot to mention:  we're still waiting on the Appeals Court ruling 
on July's preliminary injunction to shut Napster down immediately.
The trial court judge saw this as a slam dunk; the appeals court hearing
was what, October?  What's taking them so long?  

  It's true but tiresome pointing out just how thoroughly clueless
  music executives are about the mechanisms and motivations behind
  a Napster-like service..

There was an interesting "perspective" provided on NPR yesterday, where 
a journalist described his attendance at a meeting of investors who had 
lost big in the dotcom investment craze, and were looking for somebody 
to blame. (Their greed? That couldn't be it... it must be somebody 
else's fault.)

The reporter indicated that they put the blame on those he described as 
"the Pizza Kids" - young adults who spent many a late night drinking 
coke, eating pizza, and creating code. They had all been suckered in. 
The journalist had a different perspective - the investors, in their 
quest for instant riches, had corrupted the "Pizza Kid" culture - it was
 no longer a valid use of time to build on somebody else's idea, or for 
that matter to develop any code that couldn't be patented. While "Pizza 
Kids" bought into the money culture and the dream of being dotcom 
millionaires, the investors drove the creative force out of the 
Internet.

It's an interesting perspective. The place where the journalist, IMHO, 
is most clearly correct is in his refusal to place the blame on the 
"Pizza Kids". He didn't use the word "avarice," but that's what drove 
the big losses - even when the handwriting was clearly on the wall, 
early 2000, investors continued to pour their money into various 
Internet projects, hoping that they would reap exponential returns. A 
fool and his money.

The patent issue is an interesting one. But for the grant of patents to 
online business ideas, a lot of the money that flooded into Internet 
projects would not have come. To get money, a company would have had to 
do more than race to patent the latest modest innovation, stifling the 
development of parallel projects - it would have actually had to 
innovate in a manner which inspired users.

There is irony in the fact that Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL are the three 
biggest generators of page views - by a huge margin. None of them 
established that prominence on the basis of software patents or patented
 business ideas. Meanwhile, the patent holders seem to be folding in 
rapid succession.

Meanwhile, the exectuives now behind Napster, eager to get back part of 
their foolish investment, will do little more than inspire a "Pizza 
Kid", who stands to gain nothing save possibly for notoriety, to create 
the successor freeware version of Napster.

#4> Wow. What a stunning condemnation of corporate avarice concluded with a
tummy-tuck approval of "Pizza Kid" avarice. It's perspectives like these that
lead to the mentality of "They steal from us, so it's ok for us to steal from
them." ["steal" in the metaphoric sense, lest we go down THAT road again]

#0> It seems to me that, since Napster allowed users to wholesale rip-off BMG,
in the context of my last paragraph's mentality, that it's their karma to get
butt-f%$qed right back. Hardly ethical on BMG's part, but hey, isn't lack of
corporate ethics the moral underpinning of Napster in the first place? If BMG
et alia weren't corporate raiders, Napster's users would cease to have any
shadow of a moral raison d'etre... so why be surprised when the corporate
megaliths live down to expectation?

Interesting interview with a Bertelsmann exec:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2683015,00.html
(or get it from mp3.com/news)
 
The exec is still talking about file sharing and says Napster has
"a very good legal argument." 
About "security," the exec says:
"... our number one goal is that the user experience that a Napster 
user has today is not tampered with."   And, with respect to the 
digital rights management technologies which exist today, "Very few
of them have proven to be sufficient when it comes to the element
of ease of use.  They're all highly, highly secure, but secure to the
way that users can't handle.  And we don't think this is the right
approach."

Agreed, with the last sentence of the last post.

Personally, I'd like to see a system where it was easy for users to get music
that the artists have released into public domain, and difficult for users
to pirate music (and easy for them to purchase it online, if the copyright
owners so desire). But part of that, I think, involves a level of respect to
copyrighted material that (again) Napster users have not universally
expressed.

Ok.  Are you ready?  Here goes.  I just received a phone call from an 
authoritative source (i.e. a napster employee) who gave me some 
definitive information:

1) There is NO definite schedule for the redesign/reimplementation of 
Napster.  The July date mentioned is hopeful, but that's all.

2) Bertelsmann's millions were designated specifically for the 
development of redevelopment of Napster, and BMG has agreed to drop its 
suit when the new system goes online.

3) There is a Q&A on Napsters webpage, at 
http://www.napster.com/pressroom/qanda.html



Unfortunately, I was totally unprepared for this phone call, and what I 
was actually hoping for was that someone there would join in the 
discussion directly, so I didn't get any real zinger questions in, but I 
assure you that my source is legitimate and firsthand.

I'm sure the "qanda" web page represents the views and best hopes
of the Napster corporation.  It does not explain why Bertelsmann 
execs are making highly visible public statements about the future 
of Napster which, as far as I can tell, do not square with that
web page: in fact, the quote from "Entertainment Weekly" is 
a flat assertion that there will be no file sharing in the new Napster.
(pages 3 & 4, "EW Internet" insert, February 9 2001.)
 
Also see 
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21904,00.html

#8> Your source may be legitimate. So is the BMG exec. The legitimate sources
are not in concord.

I did not intent to suggest that my information was absolutely correct 
and exclusive of all other, only that it was from a legitimate source and 
not n-hand information grossly altered in transit, or something I pulled 
out of my derriere, without foundation at all.

(I think brighn completely misread aaron.  The "Pizza Kids" aaron refered to
are NOT the folks stealing copyrighted music via Napster.  They are the
authors of the software systems various dot-coms were built on.  They didn't
steal anything.)

Actually, I was responding to his last paragraph. Aaron may be misrepresenting
"Pizza Kids" in that paragraphs, but it's the clear implication taht the
creator of Napster qualifies as one. And while he may or may not personally
have illegally downloaded software, the whole point of the suit is that he
greatly facilitated it (making him accessory).

I know some "pizza kid" types, and they love to hack code that doesn't belong
to them (not all of them, but many of them).

And in case you've missed it along the way: I'm not saying I don't have
illegal copyrighted materials myself. I do. I'm saying that I don't understand
this mentality of exonerating the little guy just because the Megalith Corps
are Evil Bastards. If the little guy is doing something he oughtn't (like
creating Napster and implementing it in a way that greatly facilitates illegal
behavior), then he shouldn't be exonerated of all wrongdoing.

What is wrong with creating Napster?

*shrug* I'm not going over it again. It was created with the sole purpose of
exchanging music, with no real guards on whether that music was copyrighted.
If you still don't get it, you won't.

Your problem appears to be with the use of the program, not the program 
itself. Do you actually believe that there can be no legitimate use for 
a program like Napster? Do you actually believe that programs like 
Napster should not be created?

Here's another fun Web article:
 
http://www.business2.com/content/channels/ebusiness/2001/02/06/25833
 
from Business 2.0, titled "Napster Alternatives Lurking:
Viable entities wait to fill the void of free music on the internet."
 
The assumption underlying the story is that Napster as we have known 
it comes to an end this summer, more or less on the timetable 
announced by Bertelsmann.

#16: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The evolution of that style
of rhetoric. Yes, there are legitimate uses for assault weapons. Yes, I think
that assault weapons should be legal. No, I don't think producers of assault
weapons should be exonerated of all responsibility on the grounds that there
are legitimate uses.

don't tell me the creator of Napster was sitting around his dorm room one day
thinking, "Gee, I sure wish there was a decent way for independent musicians
to share their music with the world without having to prostitute themselves
to the RIAA." No, more likely, the thought was more akin to, "Gee, wouldn't
it be neat to connect up people's computers through the Net so we could all
swap music, because it's just so expensive in the store." [I'm not going to
say that the first thought didn't enter his mind at all, but I'd be willing
to wager that if it did, it was an afterthought or a bonus to the latter
thought.]

I do think you are too focused on Napster, and thus are missing the 
forest for the trees. With specific regard to Napster, I think programs 
like Napster are here to stay, in one form or another, like it or not. 
They do make it harder for the owners of intellectual property to ensure
 their ability to collect royalties.

I guess I should add this: I was speaking, specifically, with regard to 
your response to the comments I entered. But to be fair, I don't mean to
 criticize your focus on Napster in an item devoted to Napster. ;-)

Indeed. I don't think it's "too focused on Napster" to be responding to a post
concluding with a paragraph on Napster in an item on the topic of Napster.
A reasonable mind would presume that the intent of the original post was to
present a perspective on Napster.

Assault weapons are also here to stay. That doesn't exonerate their existence.

[NB: I'm not saying that Napster is in the same "league" as assault weapons.
I'm using extreme examples to indicate the irrelevance of Aaron's various
defenses. In case anyone thought I was a loony who thought that Napsterites
are one rage short of taking out a Mickey Dee's with an AK.]

However, you responded to that post as if the entire post were about 
Napster, when quite obviously it was not. And you continue to do so.

Yeah!  Get 'em, Aaron!  And don't forget to call him a pathological liar; it
totally wins the argument for you.

Don't forget to demonstrate that you are a true Grexer, by entering
gratuitous, hypocritical personal attacks.

  re #23, 24:  Round one goes to Scott..

Look - if it gives you and scott your jollies to take potshots, perhaps
you could at least start a new item rather than demolishing this discussion.

Paul, why don't you tell us how you interpret Bertelsmann's 
apparent embrace of Napster?

I don't want to. Aaron's hurt my feelings. *sniff*
(BTW, isn't #24 a gratuitous personal attack? Let's think about this. IF Aaron
is a true Grexer, then #24 is hypocritical (according to its text). But Aaron
is saying that all Grexers make personal attacks, ergo his making a personal
attack and his being a Grexer makes #24 [as a personal attack]
non-hypocritical. Therefore Aaron is not a true Grexer, by his own definition.
Therefore #24 carries the implication that he does not make personal attacks,
which makes #24 hypocritical, which makes him a true Grexer. Of course, we
could resolves this by concluding (a) or (b):
(a) Non-Grexers sometimes make gratuitous, hypocritical attacks or
(b) Aaron's an asshole
shall we vote on which we prefer?)

Oh, anyway, back to the topic. Ken, that's an awfully broad statement.
Personally, I would think that BMG has been given a lemon and would like to
make some lemonade. That is, it sees these potentials:
(1) Continue its legal assault on Napster. While they have the law on their
side, technically, they appear to have public opinion against them, and I do
think they have morality against them. The RIAA has attempted to portray
themselves as Defenders of Art, and I think that the masses have bought that
padlum even less than they've bought Napsters Defenders of Freedom mantle.
A case COULD be made that Napsterites are only interested in the altruistic
growth of Disadvantaged Musicians, but the bandwidth sucked up by Metallica
alone casts a pall on that argument. But with the kind of attention that the
RIAA has been giving to tripe like Britney and B*Boys, no major music label
can claim that they're just Standing Up for the Boys. They're in it for the
cahs, and they're willing to exploit the law as much as they can, even if it
means fucking ethics over.
(2) Be the first to partner with Napster. I think the goal was to make it look
like BMG was the lone sheep, the one who truly WAS interested in the Art, and
a marraige with Napster would show those cute little kids that BMG is willing
towaver in its capitalist tracks enough to embrace the little guy, to give
them an opportunity to grow. See, BMG isn't like those OTHER labels, which
are just interested in money. BMG **CARES**. It saw the PR mess that the RIAA
lawsuit has created, and decided to cut a plea bargain. And it can't lose,
either, or so it thinks: If the other labels come on board, then they were
the Trendsetters. if the other labels go on to win the suit and Napster is
banned for ever and always, problem solved without having become part of the
Man, the Bad Guy themselves. If Napster is barred from distributing all but
BMG's and independent (read: some folkie who sings in Irish pubs, and some
hacker who bangs on a Casio in his basement) music, then hey, BMG has its own
little machine all pre-fabbed. And they're probably right about the possible
outcomes.

brighn, it isn't likely that your effort to pick a fight with me will be
 more fruitful this time around than it was last time, so how about
trying  something new, and hopefully not too alien to you - by dropping
it.

(I don't agree with all of what he's saying, but I think Paul is really 
smokin' in this topic.  Hysterical laughter at the first part of #28.)

I think Napster, like so many things (the atomic bomb comes to mind), 
was created because it could be, without much thought as to whether or 
not it was a good idea.

Traditional music retailing strikes me as the wrong user interface at this
point.  Since the music is already stored as digital data, and computers are
capable of playing it, it seems pretty logical that when I want a particular
piece of music I should be able find it on line and download it.  That's what
I do with any other digital data I'm looking for.  In contrast to that, having
to go out to a store and buy a CD, or find it online and wait for the CD to
be delivered strikes me as awfully cumbersome.  Still, that tends to be what
I do, both because I have ethical qualms about taking something without paying
for it, and because my computer's sound isn't all that good.

I've played with Napster a little bit, mostly to figure out what a piece of
music was before going out to a store to blindly look for it.  Napster's
interface is pretty nice.  I search for some keywords, find the song in a
list, and click on it to download.  Even with cost not being a consideration,
it's considerably easier than going out to a physical store and buying
something.  However, beyond the interface, Napster in its current form kind
of sucks.  It's got its nice efficient search functionality, but once you
decide to download something you're often pulling it off the "server" through
somebody's 14.4K modem.

I'm interested in seeing what the record companies do with Napster.  If they,
as I've seen implied, keep Napster functioning as is from a technical
standpoint, but restrict the music there to music from participating major
record labels, I expect that to be the end of Napster.  The selection will
be less, it will cost something, and it will still be slow.  I think something
Napsterlike could be made to work well, though.  The server and client
functionalities should be separated, such that the servers, rather than being
end users' PCs, will be well connected servers belonging to the copyright
holders or authorized distributors.  Users would have accounts with the
directory service -- probably direct credit card billing would be the way to
handle it -- from which they could be charged some small amount of money for
each file they downloaded.  The money, post-commission, would be passed on
to the distributor.  Ideally the protocol would be an open standard, and the
setup fees would be sufficiently small, so individual artists and small
distributors could offer their stuff through the service as well.

That's my grand vision for online music distribution.  I don't expect those
actually doing online music distribution to follow my idea for how they should
do it, and I'm not sufficiently motivated, or expecting enough support from
the major record companies, to make it worth doing myself.

Aaron: #19 and #22 contained condescending remarks. #24, #26, and #29 had no
topic-relevant substance whatsoever, and were pure "pity me, I'm being
attacked" posts. In contrast, #28 spend a paragraph calling you an asshole
and two paragraphs actually addressing the topic at hand. Now, pray tell, sir,
who's being uncooperative and single-mindedly belligerent? Get off it, and
get off yourself, and either get back to the topic or shut up. <And THAT,
ladies and gentlemen, will be the last I have to say on the topic of Aaron
in this thread.>

#31> A major theme of Real Genius. I'd agree with that. If we'd like to go
abstract and drop the NApster-specific discussion, it might be interesting
to explore the philosophical ramifications and ethical obligation of the
inventor to the invented.

#32> I agree with paragraph #1. The problem with Napster, as with online
software distrubition, etc., is to balance the common-sense content of your
paragraph #1 with the sense that most of us seem to have that if we download
it, it should be free, or at least much cheaper than packaged goods, when most
of the price of software and music is in the creation of it, not in the
packaging.

brighn, I guess I did ask *far* too much of you. I don't know why I 
bothered.

Re #33: Most of the expense of music is in record label advertising and
profits.  The musician royalties and the cost of manufacturing are both
tiny fractions.

The record industry is notorious for playing shell games with profits, 
so as to deprive artists of their royalties. A typical record industry 
contract, particularly for a first album, is carefully contrived to 
allow the record company to "lose money", no matter how many copies are 
sold.

New article today in www.salon.com discusses music marketers who are
using Napster's tools to see what musicians and songs are on your hard
drive and send you focused marketing messages.   Some people see 
this as a validation for Napster and a way to repay, in a fashion,
the artists and the industry.  Other people worry that it could 
become just another conduit for huge quantities of unsolicted 
e-mail promoting musicians you'd never care about.

In the story's main example, the 
management of singer Aimee Mann collected 1700 new e-mail addresses
of dedicated Mann fans, even though Mann herself has been publically
opposed to Napster.  They are delighted to have 1700 fans to 
send new release and tour info to.

Intriguing story.  Title:  "The Napster Parasites."
Forgive me for not keying in the whole URL, it should not be hard to 
find on Salon.com.

Jane Siberry, the wonderfully quirky Canadian artist, who has been running
her own label for several years, now, recently updated her webpages with a
not about her forays into the Napsterverse, and her 'solution' for Napster
Musician Care. It's an interesting viewpoint, and can be found here:
http://www.sheeba.ca/napsterSweet.html

I'm assuming that online music could be considerably cheaper than store bought
music not so much because of lowered production and distribution costs, but
because I'm assuming that if music were cheap and easy to obtain on impulse,
at the moment people felt like listening to it, a lot more of it would be
sold.  I'm skeptical of the chances of obtaining significant revenue by giving
it away for free, but I expect that if it were priced at somewhere in the
range of 25 cents to a dollar per song, revenues would be considerably more
than in store revenues currently are.  At least, I'd certainly buy a lot more
of it.

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