The Twelfth Napster Item

Sep 26 22:41 UTC 2002

Napster the corporation has been destroyed, but Napster's paradigm
continues on.  This is another installment in a series of weblogs 
and discussions about the deconstruction of the music industry and
other copyright industries, with side forays into 
"intellectual property, freedom of expression, electronic media,
corporate control, and evolving technology," as polygon phrased it.
 
Several years of back items are easily found in the music2 and music3
conferences.

response 2 of 160:

Sep 26 23:31 UTC 2002

  Great.

  I can't wait to receive advice from Eminem on how to behave responsibly..

response 4 of 160:

Sep 27 14:53 UTC 2002

Eminem and (Sir?) Elton John was weird enough.

response 6 of 160:

Sep 27 19:41 UTC 2002

Imagine if every radio station, in order to play a song on the radio,
had to negotiate individually with each song's composer, performer and 
record label.  That's a good analogy of the legal quagmire facing
the authorized download services such as PressPlay and Musicnet
as they attempt to build up their catalog. 
 
(Imagine if the representatives of the composers could not be bothered
to answer the inquiries because there wasn't much money in it!)
 
Grab this *excellent* NYTimes article before it disappears into the
pay archives early next week:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/23/technology/23MUSI.html

-------

*This* NYTimes article, on the other hand, strikes me as just a lot of 
wishful thinking from the music industry, which believes that its 
legal actions, and its shadowy war to degrade the usefulness of P2P 
networks, are leading vaguely-charactized "early adopters" to give up
on the file sharing networks and switch to the for-pay systems.

Little of this matches the gossip I hear from file sharing users,
although almost all of them do mourn the loss of Napster's comprehensive
selection, probably the greatest library of music which will ever be 
assembled.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/arts/music/25DOWN.html
"Online Fans Start To Pay The Piper"

response 8 of 160:

Sep 27 22:47 UTC 2002

"Imagine if every radio station, in order to play a song on the radio,
had to negotiate individually with each song's composer, performer and 
record label.  That's a good analogy of the legal quagmire facing
the authorized download services such as PressPlay and Musicnet
as they attempt to build up their catalog."

What do you mean, "imagine"?  That once was the case!  That's the 
problem that ASCAP and BMI were invented to solve.  Which suggests that 
the solution for the PressPlay and Musicnet problem is ... do I have to 
say it?

response 10 of 160:

Sep 29 07:43 UTC 2002

There is currently no digitally reproduced equivelent for being in
the audience in the auditorium when Pavarotti sings _Nessum Dorma_
among other things.

Assuming he shows up in the first place at all and doesn't have 
a cold.
(details)

I've never been able to do that as the only time I had tickets
was the last time organizer folk booked him before he was banned
in my small town on account of not showing up.  

Who owns music?  Did Custer when he did the last stupid thing
before he died along with the rest of his troops pay for the 
rights to play 'Garryowen'?  I think not.  

And the last of the 657th time the _Stones_ played _Sympathy for
the Devil_ live in concert was when?  Some have told me the first
time  was at Altemont but I don't buy it.  I had paid for tickets 
but my mother wouldn't let me go with Glen Jensen who is in the film
of the events and that was too cruel.

The point being that the actual physical performance of an artist is
impossible to properly reproduce and that any second generation
or further reproductions are merely that.  Thus any 'bootleg'
recordings are exactly that and even the exact duplication of
a legal recording is still nothing less than a simulation by
definition and practicality.  (To be fair a CD impression from
a master is still nothing but an imitation.)

Therefore, if you attain the written score to _Handel's Messiah_
you must abide by any contractural relationship not to further
reproduce it.  But if you merely record it and reproduce it 
you should be free and clear. Given you cannot advertise 'as
performed by' so and so under probable trademark restrictions.

response 12 of 160:

Sep 29 14:06 UTC 2002

Law School would have been a lot more fun.

response 14 of 160:

Sep 29 18:29 UTC 2002

The most recent PC Magazine to hit my mailbox has John Dvorak's column "A Buck
Forty or Die", on the appropriate price ($1.40) for a CD.  The law may say
one thing, but what the people do will be quite another.

response 16 of 160:

Sep 30 21:18 UTC 2002

I own too many free samplers, or $2 samplers, to fall for any nonsense 
about production/distribution costs for CDs.  Yes, they're loss 
leaders.  But not that much of a loss.

Dvorak is right on.  "Why would you buy one for [more money]?  Because 
you had a moral obligation? ... Where is the morality in keeping the 
price jacked up?"

response 18 of 160:

Sep 30 22:26 UTC 2002

  Hmmm..   I didn't find it all that compelling.  It sounds great for the
  consumer side but doesnt offer much reason for the record companies to
  switch (apart from "do as I say, or you are doomed!  doomed!")

  Essentially he seems to be arguing in favor of them giving themselves a
  90% pay cut.  It *may* be the case that the market will eventually force
  this, though I'm highly skeptical when the market is tilted so dramatically
  in their favor currently, but until that comes about what's supposed to
  be the record companies' motivation to compromise?

response 20 of 160:

Sep 30 23:37 UTC 2002

  re #19:  

  >  And nothing less will stop the sharing of music?

  That's where I disagree with you..  

  ..to a point, anyway.  I believe your statement to be literally
  true to the extent that (practically) nothing will ever stop trading
  completely, but they don't have to stop it completely to make their
  business model work again..  heck, it seems to be more or less working
  even *now* -- people are still paying $15-$20 per CD and if the labels
  didn't keep making bafflingly bad assumptions about the bankability of
  aging pop stars they'd be making a profit even now.  They mostly just
  need to keep sharing from growing further.  Over the last few years it
  seems like they've done a surprisingly good job of keeping runaway
  file-trading growth in check, even if they haven't been able to stop
  it completely.

response 22 of 160:

Oct 1 16:36 UTC 2002

I don't use Napster or download mp3s, but it has been years since I bought
a new music CD for myself (other than at a concert from the artist
directly).  $18 still gives me severe sticker shock, and at that price,
I'm not in the market.

CDs don't have to go all the way down to $1.40 to attract me back.
Less than $5 would probably do it.  I could easily spend quite a lot at
prices like that.

response 24 of 160:

Oct 1 18:08 UTC 2002

$18 is too much for me too. If I didnt have my discount at Borders, I 
wouldnt really buy cd's. Luckily, that $18 cd costs me $12 which makes 
sense to me. If I had to pay $18, I might buy a cd now and then but I 
would buy fewer and would be more motivated to buy used cd's.