Cyclone, Craig, Scott and RC all make some excellent points on this issue and I am sooooooooo thankful this hasn't been reduced to the usual arguments. If there is one argument I am completely fed up with, it is this. No other issue can turn normally thoughtful people into mindless automatons - simply because they're offered something for free. The one thing that pisses me off the most is that most people do not give one sh*t about what it means to an artist when they download from Napster, and if pressed on this point cite rhetoric from artists who are fighting against major labels. My question is what does this mean to techno? No one ever seems to be talking about that.
To Craig's well thought out and clearly articulated points, I don't see that you can draw the parallel from software to music while invoking the George Washington paradigm. Which is it? Do we honor the historical spirit of copyright, or do we evaluate things in a modern context? If we're looking at the modern world, these issues are new and unique, so the only standard we should be worried about is fairness - the principal on which these privileges were initially granted. In what other field of art or science is work routinely stolen with so many normal consumers jumping on the bandwagon simply because they can? There is no comparison. We can envision that film piracy may reach these levels in a few years, but I think the same arguments apply. Does an artist ever implicitly consent to having their work distributed through Napster? No. If they explicitly consent is it OK? Absolutely. I agree 100% that the power of the internet should be harnessed to distribute music in a more expeditious way. Napster is not that way. I think what troubles me most about Craig's post is that it invokes an array of principles in the name of justifying a network that operates with none. If we're really trying to be principled about this, shouldn't we say that artists should retain control of which content is distributed, what amount of compensation they feel is fair for their work and where it can be found? Isn't that fair? Why can't this be accomplished with the internet? Absent Napster, aren't people making a go at it already? Aside from all of the principled talk (which I think is most important), there are two pragmatic issues that seem to divide people who have really delved into this issue. The first is whether or not we should evaluate it from the perspective of the major label "victims", or the small label "benefactors". We can probably all agree that Napster will help straighten out the major labels. What has yet to be seen is what effect it has on smaller labels. For instance, Transmat has earned $2100+ from mp3.com between Derrick May's site and the Transmat Time Space Tour site. They have earned nothing from Napster. Additionally, they can offer a limited number of tracks at mp3.com (to get people curious without revealing the whole thing), determine if they want the track to be downloadable or streaming only, they earn payback for playback and they have a means of distributing CDs all in one. How many people sidestepped all of this effort to embrace the power of the internet by downloading an entire work from Napster? How can we measure the economic loss to those artists when Napster exists? How many of those potential music buyers became music thieves simply because the free option was there? How many of those potential buyers would have bought a CD or record after hearing three songs from mp3.com, but opted not to because they could download the whole thing for free from Napster? We will never know, but I think the ambiguity illustrates my point. So what matters most to you? I would rather see Transmat get what they are due than worry about if a major label makes 50% of the money it made last year. The second issue is the application of the same copyright principles to software and music. However, I fail to see how this analogy relates to Napster. Is there a Napster for cracked software online? Aren't software cracks routinely hunted down at present, and is there not a federal task force to eliminate software piracy? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that such a site would be shut down with not a moment's pause? I think this comparison is tempting because the means of piracy are so similar, but I don't see that there is an analog to music piracy problems in the world of software piracy. The world of software is still just contending with people "dubbing a tape" as it were. If that was the level of piracy we were seeing with Napster, I wouldn't be having such a fit. Craig also raised the issue of 3rd-world nations falling victim to American business through enforcement of *international* copyright law in those countries. Craig questions why American business should be able to impose these standards on those who have nothing to gain from them. If this is the standard of how fair application of law is normally applied, I would be very surprised. My question: what do those citizens lose when 1st world artists are protected from piracy in those countries. I don't see how this is relevant, or why a different standard should apply in those countries. What harm is done to those citizens? Perhaps I haven't thought this through - it's an interesting perspective, but at present it makes no sense to me. Before I get flamed for having unlicensed mixes online, I will say one last thing. Most of us come to this argument with varying degrees of music piracy under our belt. We all chose what degree of hipocracy we can live with on this issue. I have opted to give artists full credit with a tracklisting, I only encode in the lowest quality Real Audio, and I believe there is a slim distinction between the originality of a DJ mix in Real Audio versus a full song pirated in mp3. This is how I rationalize it. The entire issue for me amounts to degrees of abuse. How much do artists lose from a loudmouth internet DJ posting their songs in his mixes? Probly not enough that I should worry about it. Chances are, they gain if anything. How much does an artist lose from people downloading their songs from Napster online? We don't really know if they would have bought that music without Napster or if the download is what made them buy it. But given that other music content providers exist online, and Napster directly limits their listenership and the effectiveness of those providers to compensate their artists, I think it sucks. It should be destroyed. Gnutella and the rest should be punished promptly. Don't get me started on mp3.com. Final Scratch is cool. Tristan the artist loving fascist ---------- http://ampcast.com/phonopsia <- My music http://phonopsia.tripod.com <- Mixes, pics, thought, travelogue & info [EMAIL PROTECTED] <- email <FrogboyMCI> <- AOL Instant Messenger _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
