MP3's, Napster, and the drama surrounding it.
About MP3s/Background:
MP3's are a method of recording and storing sound files on PCs. This newer method of PC sound recording surpasses every past method of PC sound recording to date. It enables 2 aspects of sound files never before seen combined for the personal computer: size PLUS quality. MP3's can deliver CD quality files at a fraction of the size required by traditional PC sound files. (meaning, they can, but its not guaranteed).
In other words, an MP3 file is supposed to be a "better sounding computer file that takes up less space then the current computer sound methods." The RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America] claims that MP3s are the latest form of music piracy. If you think that the industry with virtually bottomless pockets (who stand to "lose" nothing but a theorized lost cash income), can tell you how and when to listen to music...or how to be exposed to it, then by all means, support an anti-Napster stance.
Foreword
As a software designer, I take a firm stance against those that make a profit off someone else's work. I would not like it if someone claimed my work as their own. Any way you look at it, its wrong. But I have no hesitations to placing limits on people using my software, and placing a price on it to those that decide its worth keeping. I stand firmly against those that use existing technology and other peoples work to make money, but seeing or hearing that work is a right of a truly democratic society that refuses to be forced to pay ANY price to sample someone's work.
Napster, in case you didn't know, is a service, that enables you to locate and download sound files in MP3 format. I've also gotten Martin Luther Kings speeches'... as well as church songs, military bugle songs, and copies of songs I own. I have also been able to preview songs, find songs I used to own the tapes/cds for, movie clips...and even the jingles and tunes to commercials and cartoons I grew up with! As long as I don't put other peoples' music on a CD/Zip disc or website and sell access to it for profit, then technically I am not a pirate.
The RIAA and Metallica is heading the lawsuit to sue Napster because it feels that this enables people to pirate their music. But does "piracy" accurately describe the MP3 theory and Napster?
I am a user of Napster; However, I don't, nor have I ever, seen my activities as illegal, immoral or otherwise piracy. I am a former fan of Metallica, and I stopped buying their CDs when their music and the band itself took a political and social direction that I disagreed with. Yes, I used to enjoy Metallica's music, but their attitudes and their recent statement "If it wasn't for Napster, I wouldn't have to whore myself out doing things like this..." [mtv video awards] needs to be reexamined. I have yet to see other bands "whoring" themselves out because Napster supposedly has caused sales to go way down. In actuality, CD sales have gone up! But the problem lies in the RIAA claiming without Napster, sales would have been up "more". Those of you old enough, also remember them saying that without cassette tapes, sales for music would be higher. Consider this: perhaps Metallica is losing fans because other bands are too busy making decent CDs and touring, while you are busy crying "no fair". After all Metallica recently dedicated an entire album (Titled : Download This) and created a song nobody would want to bother downloading off Napster. A 55 minute track of their whining about how much money they might not be making. I don't suppose they are losing money because they began singing about how much money they aren't making. Oh, by the way, Metallica is also "guilty" of piracy since they made money off of a video that featured (in their own words) "...bootlegged video from their concerts.." That video was also used to whore the band for cash after the tragic death of Metallica member Cliff Burton. That video is called "Cliff em all". How many bands have come out since Napsters release that are now larger than thou. Ever consider that maybe sales are down for you because:
I would like to state, that I have never, nor will I ever, download a song by Metallica through Napster. It's not that I fear Metallica and its lawsuit, but because I REFUSE to listen to Metallica anymore. You can bet your ass, that since I own some of their older CD's, if I wanted to make a backup copy of a song off of them, I will do so without fear of them or the internet police kicking in my door. I will also continue to share these copies with others. For those of you who have ever tried to make an MP3 backup copy of a song you own, you know that it is a daunting task. Napster allows you to retrieve songs already converted into the preferred, compressed MP3 format. Yes, people do abuse the system by getting songs they don't already own, but do you solve the problem of bank robbers, by doing away with banks? The stark fact of the matter is, is that when you buy a CD, you are allowed to create a backup copy. MP3s are simple one method in which you can do so, but so are cassette tapes and CD burners. In the beginning, Metallica was known for handing out FREE demo tapes to fans to pass around. So are they now demanding payment just to be heard? I can say as a former fan, I'm tired of hearing them cry, and would like to see them go back to the music I USED to be willing to purchase. But, when no one will pay, is it time to blame everyone around them and try to use people who make available their music to make up for their lost profits? For crying out loud, if Elvis was alive today, how many fans would he honestly have? Since they are used to standing in front of millions of people chanting your name, wearing concert T-shirts and buying their posters, its easy to leap at saying "Tons of fans", but truth be told, they are becoming nothing more than a fad for a majority of their fans. Are they upset because the ride is over, and now its time to get a job, or make REAL music? If so, I know hundreds of "has beens" that can offer them tips. (Nena, Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, Paula Abdul, T'pau, Spin Doctors, Hootie...). I myself, quit following Metallica when they started trying to appeal to the "MTV" crowd". I'm ashamed to say I USED to listened to them since they now represent spoiled rich artists not getting their way, and throwing a temper tantrum. Their other statement about Napster allowing users to "share" music being the same as sharing cars, food, personal belongings, etc.. is also pointless. If I 'shared' a CD, I expect to get it back. If they make a copy of it while they have it, who do you blame? Would you sue the people that allowed you to burn a CD or tape it? Would you sue the person that loaned out the CD, or the person it was loaned to?
A company like Hewlett Packard (who, by the way, makes CD Burners, distributed with software that enables CD to CD copies), or 3M, Sony, and Fuji Film, (who make and sell the blank recordable CDs) ] Have you sued MTV for playing music on their countdowns that allowed me the opportunity to obtain a copy of the song PLUS the video? Or the people that made the video cassettes that gave me an opportunity to record it? How bout the VCR companies?, They allowed me to record that song...What if a person copied it old school style....radio or CD to cassette tape.....Who then would you sue to make ends meet? The stereo manufacturer that actually provided the means to play a CD and then record it to a cassette? (I hear a company called Kenwood can do that) Now lets go back tad further.....Songs heard on the radio and are then recorded to a cassette tape...Do you hit up the radio stations (for playing the music that allowed people a chance to record it), the people that physically made the cassette tapes, that enabled people to record music? Why aren't companies like Winamp being sued? The ultra popular MP3 player that converts an MP3 from worthless 1's and 0's on a disk to music. Or the makers of the software used to take a CD track and convert it to an MP3? Why aren't computer companies, modem companies and hard drive companies being sued? Without them playing their part, none if this would be possible.
Enter Napster. A system that enables you to search for, and obtain songs, although it is not the only service that allows this. My home stereo allows me to record music from the radio, Microsoft Internet Explorer, several software search applications, FTP applications, Websites, and Netscape). Napster, unlike everything else, cannot get one dime for helping one to obtain music. You can't "play" music using Napster (you need an MP3 player), nor can it guarantee that you can physically "save it" (that's the job of a hard drive). You cannot even be guaranteed that what you searched for will be what you wanted, or even a complete copy. I have read stories in newspapers, and magazines, and seen interviews with people who say "....Napster has changed my life...", and, "...with Napster, why buy CD's"? Never mind the fact that they were asking children under 18 with little to no income. I, for one, cannot bring my entire PC with me in my car to hear a song, so I'm forced to do it the old fashioned way. Sorry, Metallica but your music isn't enough for me to change my life enough so that I may sit in front of my PC at all hours of the day just to hear your music.
So why the whole Napster drama? Could it be they are the weakest link in the chain that enables people to obtain a free copy of a song? With no incoming revenue to fend off mounting court costs, they do present a target that is easier and much cheaper to attack than, lets say, Microsoft, Kenwood, MTV and Hewlett Packard. Despite the fact that CD sales have gone up, the RIAA is claiming that without Napster it would have gone up more.
This lawsuit against Napster (who makes not one dime off of its users), for millions of dollars is being spearheaded by Metallica via the RIAA. Several artists are also waiting in the wings to see if they too can make a few bucks if Metallica is successful. Meanwhile, several innovative, intelligent artists are also publicly supporting Napster, for what it truly represents, and what it can come to mean for musicians. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for the next release of a 10 minute download that is to be the next Napster. Speaking of the "next" Napster, there are programs in existence that take the theory behind Napster a step further. I will not place their links here since I have faith that the legal system will see this lawsuit for what it is worth, an attempt to assign blame for an imagined loss of profits. Perhaps this lawsuit was urged on by the recording industry that has been locking horns with the legalities of MP3s since most of the efforts have been largely unsuccessful. Whatever the reason, we the people, should be able to decide where our dollars go. The brutal truth of the matter is this: If we, as a nation decide to pay minimum wage workers $30.00 an hour, then guess what happens. Despite whatever was promised to the workers in the past, if they make minimum wage, and it is decided to raise it, they get a raise. If we, as a nation, decide to change laws that were created before the internet and we decide to make music FREE to PREVIEW, then guess what. Despite whatever the musicians were promised, in a democracy, majority rules. If they don't like it fine, they are free to get a job that pays more.
If asked, my cash would happily go to:
The RIAA and Metallica may win this lawsuit. Not because what's going on is wrong, but because copyright laws developed in the 60's-70's had no concept of what could be the future of music. The RIAA has decided to stake its claim and take an active stance against song sharing. However, what they fail to see is that MP3s were around long before Napster. This is the beginning of the end of a monopoly, and cooperate control exerted on free thinking citizens. The same laws being manipulated by RIAA lawyers in this lawsuit are laws we can change. As they wage their war on Napster in a court of law, I can only smile knowingly, since it's clear that stopping Napster won't come near to accomplishing their goals- to make even more money. Embracing the future may be a bittersweet prospect for them...but it is inevitable.
Note to RIAA and AntiNapster folks.
The thoughts and works on my WebPages are copyrighted and thus protected under existing US copyright laws. ALL access to my work, whether it be through a third person service such as Napster or Microsoft Internet Explorer constitutes "usage" of my work. As a "web page artist" I reserve the right to demand prompt payment for the right to my original materials on a "per visit" basis. Like US taxes, that total will be based on current income.