Another take on Napster

[Dagnabit]

I wanted to talk about this but figured we should start another thread. So, two things spring to mind about Napster.

ONE..... they are very obviously participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law.

I would defend the publication of instructions on how to do illegal things - that's free speech. So I'm wondering where the line gets crossed. How arbitrary is the line?

Fedex has been delivering a lot of illegal packages. The law requires that if your package is not actually urgent, an overnight delivery service can't deliver it -- it has to go via the US Mail. Fedex encourages the use of Fedex for non-urgent delivery. Fedex is participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law.


TWO..... where advances in technology enable a new approach, if that approach is not provided by the traditional market, new markets or approaches will spring up to take advantage.

This happens even if the other approaches are illegal -- witness Fedex. And if the companies protect their market through lobbying for legislation or "blank tape taxes" or such, they are participating in a losing situation in the long run. Now that the net is worldwide, information is worldwide and competition is also worldwide. Something being lobbied to be made illegal in the US just means that offshore activity in that trade will INCREASE.

So nobody is let off the hook here. Individuals are knowingly breaking the law; Napster is conspiring to break the law; the entertainment companies are just seeing their comeuppance from years of behaving badly; the government is too dunderheaded to work out better and different copyright schemes; law enforcement just does what's easy and what it wants to do.

In such a ridiculous situation, I'm encouraged to take the "no harm no foul" approach. I'll go by the approach of a friend of mine, talking about software piracy: if I wouldn't have bought the software at their price, I don't feel bad about pirating it; if I like the software, use it, and would buy it at their price, then I do buy it. I give the companies what I believe they should get.

So if I use Napster and find that I like something, I go buy it, even if I can get the entire album via mp3.

[wst3]

Very interesting fact about Fedex vs. the USPS... I don't know if it is on point, but it is close.

I seem to be the only one here who really believes that it is wrong to steal from artists, so this will be my last post on the topic... the majority rules<G>!

But while I'm typing... it really doesn't matter what one's justification is for stealing, it does not change the fact that it is stealing. Stealing is morally wrong, and in this country and this century, it is also illegal.

You can't use Napster as a radio substitute. Radio stations pay for the priviledge of playing all that music and the fees they pay are distributed amongst the artists that they play. The system is far from fair, and given the technology available today we could do a whole lot better, but when you sign a recording contract this is one of the things that you are asked to accept. If you do not accept the current royalty scheme, the contract won't be signed by the lable, and you won't have a deal.

Extortion? Yeah, but all such deals work this way. Example, I think that random drug screening is abhorent. But if there was a job I really wanted (or needed) and they practiced this violation of my civil rights, I'd have to choose betweem the job and my beliefs. Is this fair? No! Oh well!

And you can not say that since you don't like something you wouldn't have paid for it anyway. I've heard this argument for years with repect to software piracy, and franky, it demonstrates a severe lack of integrity.

"I really didn't like your car, so I wouldn't have paid for it anyway"... if a car thief said that would you drop the charges?

Why is it that otherwise reasonable people can't see the value in something that isn't tangible (forget for the moment the fact that the actual packaging for software and music is tangible... these same reasonable people do!)

The music industry suffers from a LOT of faults. They've taken advantage of the consumer and the artist for as long as pop music has existed, and that's a long time! No one is going to defend them.

But that is not the issue. The issues is that somewhere out there someone wrote a song. Then they recorded it. If you've never been through this exercise believe me, it is not as simple as it looks! And we're just talking about the effort, when you add in the talent required, and the cost... well, this person has done a lot so that you might be entertained.

Our society places some value on all of that time, effort, talent, and expense... at least part of it does. And that part of society made rules to protect the person who creates that which entertains us. Not out of any altruistic reasoning... no, copyrights are in place to insure that people in the future will continue to create and innovate, something else at least part of our society values.

If you truly value the concept of an artist making a contribution, how can you deny them the right to control the distribution of their work, and to gain financially from their success?

Another argument I heard from a 12 year old was that "well... you know... Brittany isn't all that... you know... good... why should I pay for her CD?" A lot of kids today believe that they are entitled to whatever they want, and if that doesn't work, they find some other justification.

And it's no different for my generation and the ones that preceded me. We did things that were wrong. My favorite is office supplies. I have a pile of notepads with 15 or 20 shets left on them. When I was going to a meeting, and my notepad was almost empty I'd put a new on in the folio and stick the old one in my briefcase... where it would sit until I finally took it out of the briefcase, usually at home. That's stealing too. And trust me, employers do not willingly stock the supply cabinet so that you don't have to buy sticky notes or note pads or pens. Most of them get more than a little annoyed at the shrinkage... and some of them probably did the same thing when they were a little further down the ladder.

A "friend" of mine worked for a computer company. He used to sell me "refurbished" drives at a pretty fair price. Well, he's unemployed now, and probably will be for quite some time. Turns out he started by grabbing disks that were pulled from machines in the office for one reason or another. He got them for free, he figured that they were going in the trash anyway. Then he'd send them back to the factory to get them repaired under warrantee. Turns out his boss had the very same idea... except that they never could find those pulls. And he sold them to me... at a very hefty profit, since he let the company pay the shipping charges. But it gets better... after a while the cash got too attractive, and there just weren't enough pulls, so he started grabbing spares out of the cabinet and selling them. And he probably sold me one of those too.

Now I admit to being pretty naive... I thought he had a genuine, legal, channel... at least I thought that for a while. We all want to believe that there is a better deal out there somewhere. If we don't believe in the free lunch anymore, well, we believe in the discounted lunch!

How is what he did any different than what Napster, and all the little napsterites are doing? He didn't pay for the materials he later sold. Napster doesn't pay for the songs that get them the eyeballs that get them the advertising that gets them cash. Why is Napster different?

Needless to say, there have been quite a few posts on this topic, ranging from blaming the evil entertainment empire to justifying via technology. None of these arguments have swayed me, and I doubt that any will. When you take control of something away from it's rightful owner, that's just plain wrong.

I'll shup up now... at least for a while.

[tw]

Originally posted by wst3
Very interesting fact about Fedex vs. the USPS... I don't know if it is on point, but it is close.

I seem to be the only one here who really believes that it is wrong to steal from artists, so this will be my last post on the topic... the majority rules<G>!

Which means wst3 was never reading my posts carefully. I never said it was right, or moral, or legal, or polite, or ethical, or acceptable to steal from artists. Indeed, they will be the victims of a system that is self-destructing. Allow me also to verbally chastise, to openly rebuke, to publically condemn Dagnabit's self-serving, anti-society, corrupt concepts of legalized stealing - expecially when software is so inexpensive.

That is a problem with his perspective. Corrupt mentalities will say that is it legal to steal the gasoline because prices are so high. IOW they conveniently forget even basic facts. Gasoline is still cheaper than it was in the 1970s and through most of history. In fact, gas prices are too extremely low. IOW the 'justification for theft' is a classical example of thinking using the head between the legs rather than the one on the shoulders; using emotion rather than logic to think with.

The first post in this thread is a classic example of one justifying his theft.

Perspective is important here - as in everything else. Where as Napster is symptoms of a mismanaged, overly top heavy, anti-innovation industry; that does not justify stealing - from the perspective of the individual user. I believe most readers never understood the important concpet of perspective in my 'too long' posts. I believe wst3 has failed to understand the importance of that perspective. Dagnabit's perspective is classic, immoral corruption - not to be confused with an economic perspective of why Napster exists.

[wst3]

Originally posted by tw

Which means wst3 was never reading my posts carefully. I never said it was right, or moral, or legal, or polite, or ethical, or acceptable to steal from artists.
<big snip>
Perspective is important here - as in everything else. Where as Napster is symptoms of a mismanaged, overly top heavy, anti-innovation industry; that does not justify stealing - from the perspective of the individual user. I believe most readers never understood the important concpet of perspective in my 'too long' posts. I believe wst3 has failed to understand the importance of that perspective. Dagnabit's perspective is classic, immoral corruption - not to be confused with an economic perspective of why Napster exists.

Man I hate it when this happens, but I guess I gotta answer this one<G>...

I repeatedly asked you how you could justify theft and you answered with additional accusations of ant-innovation and anti-americanism... which certainly appears to be justifying Napster, and therefore theft via Napster.

I'm not even sure if Napster is a symptom of a top-heavy, greedy, etc business climate, or perhaps a lazy, entitled populace. Probably both, and I don't know which is in the lead.

What I know:
1) CD prices are ridiculous, even when you consider what it costs to "break" a new act, and how many development deals actually pan out.

2) We all keep buying them (well, except for those who steal them!) We could end the gouging if we simply stopped voting with our wallets, and giving them license to gouge.

3) The audio quality of the few MP3s I've heard has been awful. There are folks who carefully process their material before converting to MP3, and it the material is suitable, and the engineer talented, it is only bad. The stuff that is posted on MP3.com is worse, and the examples (admittedly few) I've heard from Napster are awful. Without ratting anyone out, in my office there are two napster denzions, so I have heard a few examples.

Once again, if people cared they could change that from awful to just bad<G>... or maybe even acceptable.

4)The record companies tend to treat artists a whole lot better today than they did 50 years ago... partly because artists got smarted, and partly because the public got smarter. Sadly the part that is due to management's values is tiny indeed.

5) Theft is theft, and it is wrong on moral and legal grounds. You want to change that, change the laws. Don't just ignore them.

[tw]

Originally posted by wst3
Man I hate it when this happens, but I guess I gotta answer this one<G>...

I repeatedly asked you how you could justify theft and you answered with additional accusations of ant-innovation and anti-americanism... which certainly appears to be justifying Napster, and therefore theft via Napster.

I'm not even sure if Napster is a symptom of a top-heavy, greedy, etc business climate, or perhaps a lazy, entitled populace. Probably both, and I don't know which is in the lead. [/b]

I was answering from a perspective of 'what is important to the ecomony' and not from a personal perspective. Furthermore, this personal perspective only confuses the important issue - the future of all media industries.

From a personal perspective, to use Napster only to steal music is wrong. Although Napster was a way for people to share music - perfectly legal. Napster exists one the hairy edge of legal. But to duplicate Word 2000 for all friends because you think it costs too much - clearly just greedy stealing.


From the larger perspective, is it real to demand copyright protection from sharing for 20 years when the non-profit distribution is so common after 5? Copyright for music to be used in a commercial - yes. Copyright from non-profit distribution - it makes no sense. There are some serious questions to be asked - and like in the criminalization of mariguana - these question will not be asked.

To take only because you think it is overpriced is stealing. But to maintain obsoleted business models in the face of new technologies is to encourage criminal acts. Two completely different perspectives. It does not justify the individuals acts but the act is inevitable in an business based on obsoleted distribution laws.

We have other absurd laws such as not equating cigarettes equal to crack cocaine, and criminalizing mariguana. Some mandatory jail sentences are longer than those for murder. Do I condone the individual use of hazardous drugs like cigarettes or crack? No. But like Napster, the billions spend on drugs is directly traceable to another obsolete and unworkable business model - the drug laws and their promoters - extremist right wing Jesse Helms / Dan Burton types.

Perspective again. I don't condone the stealing of music only because it is so expensive. But I recognize Napster as a symptom of an industry that can't adapt to change - just like drug laws are rediculous and absurd. Napster and drug smugglers are inevitable when laws are unrealistic.

Perspective of the individual user (drug or music) is different from overall economic judgements (Napster or drug smuggling industry).

[Dagnabit]

wst: "You can't use Napster as a radio substitute. Radio stations pay for the priviledge of playing all that music and the fees they pay are distributed amongst the artists that they play."

That condition occurs only because the airwaves are regulated. If the record companies COULD pay the stations to air all that music, they WOULD. And with the involvement of mob-connected independent "promoters", I'll wager they still ARE paying. Because every three-minute Brittany song is actually a three-minute commercial for an overpriced CD and accompanying lifestyle.

Theft is theft, but what a simple-minded statement. I'll wager that you break laws every day. The volume of state and federal laws ensures that each and every one of us is practically in violation of the law each time we set foot outside the door, especially when we get in our car. How many of us have sent a non-urgent package via an overnight delivery service? How many have tossed an aerosol can in the regular trash without looking at the "dispose of properly" instructions?

What matters to me more is intent. When I use Napster, I use it as a replacement for radio. It has encouraged me to buy more music. I do not download entire albums as replacements for buying the disks. My intent is to reward the *right* artists, the ones who appeal to me; and, in this and many other cases, following the letter of the law would lead to a worse result for *all* involved.

And, because I have faith in humanity, I believe that if people really knew that their actions were bad to artists, they would change how they act. Only a very small segment of the population is so selfish as to, for example, NOT pay a "suggested donation" price to enter a museum.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
wst: "You can't use Napster as a radio substitute. Radio stations pay for the priviledge of playing all that music and the fees they pay are distributed amongst the artists that they play."

What matters to me more is intent. When I use Napster, I use it as a replacement for radio. It has encouraged me to buy more music. I do not download entire albums as replacements for buying the disks. My intent is to reward the *right* artists, the ones who appeal to me; and, in this and many other cases, following the letter of the law would lead to a worse result for *all* involved.

Actually, my favorite band, the one which introduced me to a whole genre of music, I heard because of free tracks on MP3.COM. This was important because their music cannot be found in any chain record store.

In the 1950's you used to be able to go into a record store and try out the records. Now, even though CD's cost more than vinyl used to, there is no "try before you buy". Unless it is part of a small subset of songs programmed into a "listening station", you have no way of telling whether you like most of a CD. In many cases you are buying because of only one song heard on the radio or MTV.

Music purchases are one of the least informed consumer choices we make, and we let them do this to us.

As for stocking independent bands and artists, most chain music stores stink at this. In part it is because they have become lazy and dependent on distributors too heavily linked to the "big 5" record companies. One of these days there might actually be a report which shows that some chain store actually pays a fine for every indy label CD they stock.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
they are very obviously participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law.

I don't think that is necessarily true. Lots of mp3's were being spread around the internet before Napster. I think this kid at Northeastern just said, "Hey, there's got to be a better way to share or get mp3's." And, voila...Napster.

There were some rumblings going on before Napster got big...but this didn't blow up until Metallica blew a gasket over their "I Disappear" single being leaked. Then, the floodgates seemed to open.

Fedex has been delivering a lot of illegal packages. The law requires that if your package is not actually urgent, an overnight delivery service can't deliver it -- it has to go via the US Mail. Fedex encourages the use of Fedex for non-urgent delivery. Fedex is participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law.

Really? Wow...I have never heard of that. So, are we just talking FedEx, or is UPS involved as well? My previous employer shipped everything UPS, except to Alaska, Hawaii, and US Territories. The reason they used UPS: Because trying to claim lost or damaged packages through the Post Office is a pain in the ass. UPS was easier...and delivery times here in the Northeast were better than with the Post Office.

Individuals are knowingly breaking the law; Napster is conspiring to break the law; the entertainment companies are just seeing their comeuppance from years of behaving badly; the government is too dunderheaded to work out better and different copyright schemes; law enforcement just does what's easy and what it wants to do.

My question is this: If I decide to borrow a CD from a friend and make a tape recording of it...is that against the law too? For all practical purposes, yeah, it's against the law. But to me, that is essentially what Napster is about. There have been double tape decks for years...and now you have CD burners, which are essentially the same.

So if I use Napster and find that I like something, I go buy it, even if I can get the entire album via mp3.


I feel the same way...and this is what the stats are currently showing--the music industry and their retailers are not losing a helluva lot of cash off this...not yet at least. Their losing more money through CD sales at Best Buy than Napster, I would imagine. And Best Buy is the main one losing money...they sell the CDs cheaper so that you'll buy an expensive stereo or refrigerator. Not to mention, Bertelsmann (one of the Big 5, who now owns CD Now) has a sizable stake in it.

I'm also curious as to WHO exactly is using Napster. After all, CD prices in the rest of the world are generally higher than ours. A new CD in the UK runs about $20+. The most I've seen them here in the US is about $18.99.

I don't have the HD nor a "good enough" computer to try and make my own CDs anyway. Screw it...I'll go to Tower and buy it.