Hi folks, Well, I guess it's time to inject a dose of lively talk into the board, cause things are looking kind of blah. During my absence, you all must have gabbed and bickered like beauty salon ladies about the Napster thing, so here's what I think. As it was, you were discussing it before Metallica did their thing: So, is Napster Evil? In principle, yes. You are taking for free what is being sold thanks to a technological loophole. But let's face it, folks, all this talk about the lack principles and morals in stealing have nothing to do with the real issue the RIAA is concerned with, do they?? It's just nice to seem self-righteous, which is why that imp Lars Ulrich will go on and on about Right vs Wrong, and the morals of stealing. The true issue, of course, is money. The big honchos of the recording industry - as well as the wealthy artists - are qucking in their collective boots that this represents millions down the proverbial drain. Don't be fooled by the "morals" argument, as the prime concern for the parties involved is money....most of these people have no moral authority to be talking like Holy Rollers (particularly when they're screwing around on their wives/girlfriends, backstabbing others to climb another rung on the corporate ladder, and many more in a long list of hell-condemming activities). So yes, using Napster is wrong. But see, clever people know that it's simple-minded & stupid - indeed, even dangerous - to look at issues in black & white. Few things are ever that simple. Most people I know use Napster the way I do. And this is it: a) Mostly, I hunt down stuff that isn't readily available. I have downloaded tons of B-sides, live tracks, interviews, acoustic versions, etc, from loads of great bands from Bon Jovi to Harem Scarem to Bryan Adams and back. You want to put these unavailable tracks on the market? Fine. Otherwise, please have the courtesy to let me get my rare stuff in peace. b) Getting my grubby hands on out of print music. If I want to downlaod an MP3 of, say, "Just Between You and Me" from Lou Gramm's deleted second solo album I can either get it from a used CD store (after hours of sweaty hunting through crapola bins) or download it speedily from Napster. Either way, Lou and producer Peter Wolf will not see one cent because the album bombed and is no longer sold. The smelly redneck who runs the used CD shop, who would get any and all profits from the sale, isn't entitled to any artistic rights, so any and all arguments against Napster go down the poop tube there.... c) Downloading the occasional mainstream song. Here's where things get murky. Sometimes, I'll go and download something from, say, Elton John, Tina Turner, Tom Petty, maybe even a guilty pleasure like *gasp* Britney Spears. So, I'm stealing money out of their pockets, right? Not necessarily. These are songs I would not have bought anyway; that's the reason I don't have them in my collection already. I mean, a compulsive CD buyer like myself would have shelled out the money for the latest Tom Petty years ago if I had wanted to. But I didn't and I never will. It just isn't worth it in my estimation if I only like one song. So, when Napster is available I get the one song I liked but was too cheap to ever buy. In a weird way, it even works in Tom's favor because by listening to the Nap songs I might even become a fan and start actually buying his stuff. This same thing happens with other people, too. One of my best friends adores Whitesnake. But he's an incredibly cheap bastard and will *never* open his wallet to pay 16 bucks for a CD. When Napster came out, he started downloading WS songs, but he wasn't ever going to buy 'em. My brother is sadly a closet rap fan (yes, the whole family is ashamed) but hasn't paid for a rap record in his life. Now he downloads Snoop Dogg and shit like mad. And still, he will never pay for a rap record in his life. The other thing is, people will not stop buying CDs! Metallica has said it doesn't mind losing fans, but what it doesn't realize is that half the people who downloaded their songs aren't fans to begin with, otherwise they would have already had a CD. The other half probably were fans downloading rare tracks and will probably be pretty pissed at their once-favorite band. Hell, even down here in Mexico3 of the most popular radio stations - I shit thee not - have announced *they* have banned Metallica permanently. Part of what bothers people isn't the lawsuit as such, but a lot of the posturing and endless balbbering by that blithering idiot Lars Ulrich....they could've just released a press statement and not gotten so involved, but with Lars shooting his mouth off saying all sorts of self-righteous stuff about his band being the greatest and that they will still sell in the millions, and that his art will live forever, etc, etc, ad nauseam people get pissed and want to hurt his band.....not necessarily because he is rtight or wrong regarding the issue, just because he's an asshole. The money they think they're losing right now will really be lost when pissed of fans buy several thousand copies less or when less people go to the concerts. What kind of bothers me is the attitude, that the lawsuit is over-the-top, too: they want 100,000 dollars for every song downlaoded as compensation. Give me a break, that's excess if I ever saw it. So, is Metallica losing money? The figures for one, contradict them. Look at this: "Here are some numbers from Soundscan that show CD sales are way up in the 1st Quarter of 2000, against the 1st Quarter average from 1995-1999: Jan 2000 change from Jan 95-99 average +07.3% Feb 2000 change from Feb 95-99 average +19.4% Mar 2000 change from Mar 95-99 average +20.7%" So, Metallica took the risk of playing devil's advocate and shot themselves in the foot. Makes no difference to me, I didn't like them anyway....never bought any of their records. Never downlaoded anything either, even when it was there for the taking. If anything, the figures show publicity has been good for them. Anyway, I got sidetracked; the point is that when the new Sammmy Hagar, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi or Bryan Adams (etc, etc...) come out I will not be satisfied with downloading tracks. I want the whole CD because it's just sooo much better. I want the nice & neat package with the pretty pictures and satisfying image. So do all of you. Do any of you really think that the legions of rabid Backstreet Boys, Marilyn Manson, Will Smith, and Limp Bizkit fans will stop flocking to record store when the new album comes out?? Hell no! They will keep selling the same amounts. Look at the recent record-breaking sales with N SYNC and Britney Spears.... So the question now is...what happens to the smaller artists. The ones who don't depend on sales to buy their forty-first Ferrari, but rather to make a living. What about the Danny Danzis of the world? First off, MP3 of these artists are not even available. Period. You find me full MP3s of Tower City and Jeff Paris. You can search far and wide, there aren't any. But even if there were, I think that when it comes to our beloved AOR scene, the vast majority will actually buy the record. I, for one, like to feel that I support my small scene with money and will pay for the CDs of the AOR labels, especially in light of the fact that I think I'm getting my money's worth since it's THE genre I love. The people who listen to underground bands like ours (let's face it, that's what they are) are usually die-hards and won't sell the artists out. Let's remember that Napster is a reflection of what record sales are like out there....the bands and artists being downloaded the most are the most popular because they have ENORMOUS amounts of MP3s available through Napster. Which means that even assuming that someone is losing money, it would be N'SYNC and bands of that ilk. And N' SYNC can afford to lose money, since they sold a record-breaking 2.4 million albums in their first week and ride around in private jets shooting up (yeah, I guess they do despite their teeny-bop image). Well, the Danny Danzis of this world are still way too small for people to put them up on Napster and trade them, so there's no problem there. They're sort of protected by their own anonymity. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Those were the thinking man's arguments. The other one is simply the Robin Hood approach. Vengeance, payback, robbing the rich and giving to the poor, call it what you will. Many people seem to think that with Napster (under the assumption that you are taking money from the labels at all, that is) you're finally balancing the scales back in your favor. What I mean is: do any of you know what CDs cost? I mean *really* cost? They're worth nothing, fucking peanuts. I know because I had a friend who had a Record Store and he showed me what it costs the reocrd companies and the CD store and every middle man along the way. The profit margins are something like 4,000%. How many times have you felt ripped off? I know Socrates said you can't fix a wrong with another wrong (which is why I only half-agree with this posture), but even if I were taking money out opf these people's pockets (which I'm not, but if I were) it would be kind of nice for a change. God forbid Britney and Elton have one less Hundred Dollar Bill to wipe their asses with, or that some slick, scumbag record company executive can spend just a bit less on snorting coke in the back of a stretch limo with a abhorrently expensive prostitute. Fuck that, I'd rather let Don save 2 bucks to feed his starving children with. Lighthearted opinions? Pissed-off remarks? Please do - Cheers, Jack. Undead Tap-dancing Ghoul.http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1838#msg-1838Thu, 23 May 2013 06:08:34 +1000 Phorum 5.2.16 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,2000#msg-2000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,2000#msg-2000
Well, you've all mentioned some really clever points, and as much as I love to ramble endlessly, I won't sift through them all one by one. The thing I want to focus on is -- most people know that Napster is if not necessarily illegal as such, a legal loophole to a morally illegal wrong. Right?? I still think many of the points I raised are very valid indeed (except for the "Robin Hood approach", which was nice mentioning anyway) and at the same time Danny is right in his own way. The point being, I do think Napster will eventually die unless it is regulated in some form or another.....they can't keep it up forever. Without wanting to sound too Darwinian here, the future is simple - if it doesn't want to die, it will have to adapt (dare I say evolve?). But, assuming you're going to keep it alive and not shut the company down altogether, how do you put a leash on it?

There are several scenarios, but I'll just put two for now. Stay with me -

a) Napster could stay the way it is, but some form of control is provided so people cannot trade full albums readily available on the market. Everything else, from interviews, remixes, and deleted albums to live versions and B-sides can be traded back and forth with glee. I'd be pretty happy with this, as it doesn't harm anyone and this is what I mostly use it for anyway. The problem is that it would be astoundingly difficult to do so. Some poor bastard would have to design a whole new program with every available thing on it and besides, the variety of artists out there of all genres is mind-boggling. Also, since Napster works on the names people give their files to recognize a song, people could just type in alternate names and trade the same widely available product without getting caught (e.g., I E-mail Danny or send him a message via ICQ saying "pssst.....I'm gonna put up the new Britney Spears as Sounds of the Gypsy Countryside and you just download it and change the file names on your computer"). So it will be very difficult to pull off.

Of course, the alternative to make this scenario work is very simple. Napster, to avoid dying, makes some sort of list or contact number for arts\ists. Then, any artist can specify that he does not wish his music to be traded in such a manner and that's it. Napster acquieses and makes that artist's albums be unavailable (by forbidding files with that name to go onto the program). Simply not allowing those files to go in is a better alternative to banning users. Besides, those agreements with the artist only involve available songs (which means that only the songs from store-available discs of their catalog are banned, leaving everything else such as B-sides, etc.). If an artist chooses not to put himself down on the list, then it is kind of understood that he tacitly accepts it. That way, the artist benefits as well because he doesn't have to go into the whole lawsuit thing that makes him look like an asshole. And once many artists start doing it, anyone from Sting to Dan Danzi can specify it and that's it. Think about it - you get the best of both worlds.....rather than have Napster shut down, you still have access to rare, live, and undeleted songs AND widely available tracks from artists who are not on the exclusion list because, much like Motley Crue or Limp Bizkit (ugh!), they favor the use of Napster for their music. The exclusion list would run in the thousands, but it will allow Napster to stay legal, and more importantly, alive.

b) Napster starts involving money. This can be handled a dozen different ways. You can pay a fee for access per month and said fee can be distributed equally among the artists you download for said time period (Napster would have to keep track of your downloads in a file or something and pass on the funds accordingly) or simply enough, Napster can charge a fee per download, period (although in an ideal situation, it would only charge if it were an available track, which again brings in the aforementioned problems). Users, of course, won't be pleased - the argument will go "Well, if I'm paying anyway, what prevents me from going to the record store and just buying it with the pretty pictures and artwork, all the good looking shit instead of paying online for something I'll have to burn?? (and still pay for a blank CDR in the bargain!)" The answer is something Surfpunk won't like very much.

You make it cheaper. How do you do that?? By axing the middleman. The record companies strike a bargain with Napster where Napster (still charging nothing for themselves, as they apparently have other means of income - see my question at the end of this rant) passes on the earnings to the record company, and they in turn, give the artist his piece of the pie for royalties, etc. You eliminate not only the stuff from the retailer (and what he pays for the CD + overhead costs + profit) but what the record company has to spend to ship truckloads of CDs nationwide, and for pressing the disc on an actual piece of plastic, spending more paper, etc etc, etc. Basically, the record company - which owns the recorded work - passes it to Napster, which in turn sells you the whole Britney Spears CD for 4 bucks or so (or a track or two of your choosing for a pre-established frction of that price). It's a cheaper alternative for those who aren't so gaga over Britney that they have to have the whole printed & packaged deal. Maybe the record labels will make less than with bona fide record store sales, but they certainly won't be losing money. Remember, a huge portion of the price the retailer buys the CD at includes all of the record companie's spending on material and people. If they sell it to you by Napster (sans middleman) their only cost is the electronic file itself. If you still want to buy the whole thing for 17 bucks you're free to do so, but you can get it for less than half without the bells and whistles if so you wish. The artist & record company get their share and since they're not giving to you the music all wrapped up in material from third parties, you don't pay as much. For this to happen, Napster would have to grow enormously in order to handle the dealing with money and record labels, so who knows.......and conventional record stores would be supremely pissed off. But again, we'd have to take a look at the figures and see if there's actually an impact in ordinary retail sales, or if they stay more or less the same and the overall sales of the product increase thanks to Napster. At the same time, Napster allows you to trade non-available stuff for free. The whole thing would be very complicated and is giving me a headache - I don't even know if I'm making any damn sense.

As a final question though, I was wondering how in the hell these Napster folks make money. Afetr all, the download of the program is free (and they don't offer enhanced pay versions like Real Audio and other companies). Yet their FAQ assures the reader that "the hard work of the Napster team does not go unrewarded". Anyone know how they handle this?

Cheers,

Jack.
White Trash Half-Blind Bogeyman.

]]> Jack NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 02:58:08 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1990#msg-1990 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1990#msg-1990
Awesome post man! I won't ramble here (yeah right...I just read what I wrote, so pull up a chair and a six-pack!) because you and the others covered this quite well. But I figured I'd give you my outlook, and this isn't just directed at you....no it ain't harsh either....you know me better than that. ;-)

Being a rather slightly satisfied newcomer to the scene here as an artist, I see Napster in it's current state like a gun. Illegal if used improperly. A gun will kill if you make it kill, but there are laws and safety issues. The same should be done with Napster I think. Rules and regualtions that protect a current full album from being posted. I for one would even make a deal that I would submit 2 songs to Napster with my consent. One that would not be on any album I put out (just for possible new fans and Napster users) and one from a forthcoming album to give a sample of my work. I have no problems with that whatsoever, it's the full album thing I disagree with.

Lil guys like me are just trying to be established in an underground scene. How can we survive? I'll be honest here. I've never used Napster illegally, (I have it, but it ain't installed) but if you told me the new Van Halen album was on it, I'd grab it in a heartbeat. Why? The point I'm trying to make here is what goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business, and I think this is what will happen to everyone that loses an album on here. No I wouldn't admit if I even stole the Vh or not. Will my fans really go buy my album if they can get it for free? I gave out 1000 cd's of my album in pre-production form....6 songs....and everyone I gave it to I made a deal with. "I'll give you this for nothing, but please help support me when the real one comes out?" I know allot who didn't. They admitted they didn't, and there are probably more that didn't and said they did. So why buy when you can get it for free? How does lil Danny have a chance especially in a scene that is tough to satisfy anyway?

And on the contrary dear Jack, I've seen my album on it already, and "Eternity" as well after 2 days of release!!!! Am I offended or pissed? Yes and no. Yes because my album is on it, and no because it's cool that I'm thought of as "decent enough" to be up there already. This thing could help us, but I see it as nothing but hurt for guys like me just starting out and trying to make something of themselves. You see, this program will earn more and more followers, and as long as it's in the headlines everyday, this number will multiply greatly on a daily basis. Most people are fed up with the price of CD's as it is. I too am pissed about how much they charge for them. Yeah artwork, production, pictures and lyrics......on a plastic thing I get from my retailer for under a buck a piece. Ok, my really good media discs are like $4.00 a piece. Still......why pay $16 when it's under your nose for free? Is it the labels making this high price thing, or is it the stores?

Why is it you can buy my Cd from NEH.com cheaper than anywhere else in the US? They are in the US correct? Why is amazon.com and CDnow.com $20-30? So you see, everyone blames the labels right away. I think the stores are the greedy ones myself. Just like the US government makes us want to rob and steal because we work our whole lives and get the shaft. My Grandfather did his duty for the US in the service and worked his whole life into oblivion. He went to get his social security check for the first time and was pushed to the side while an immigrant was instantly paid. My point? He had the right to rip someones head off! But that would have been illegal. These CD prices keep going up, it forces people to get upset and go illegal. But free is free, and even if the CD's cost $5, it's gonna demolish lil guys like me. Ok, I'm not too popular, nor am I the flavor of the month, but we need a certain amount of Cd's sold per year, and if we fall under that amount, the label is gonna drop us.

Let's say I was a brand new artist....and SLIT was just coming out. You know how hyped it was and the buzz that went on at that time, remember? Let's say that my quota was to be 2,500 cd's sold, and I fell short by 200. Yes, that also means I probably wasn't that good with that lil amount sold in the first place, but that extra 200 might have bought me another album with my label. Bottom line, the lil guys will definitley feel this I think and especially new guys if there is enough of a buzz about them. So we look at Danny D now. I have a small fan base, have a lil bit of notoriety mostly because I take part on these boards....that makes for more of a risk factor this time around I think, don't you? By the skin of our teeth most of us as it is, we can't afford to lose a single sale. The damn thing is just plain illegal in my eyes and should be banned. Stealing music is against the law, cut and dry. If we boycott anything, it should be the stores that are forcing prices through the roof! And if in fact a label is responsible, then you gotta do what you gotta do, but at the end of the day, the artist loses from all of the above and I think that sucks! Sorry to ramble as I said I wouldn't, but I feel better now. Again, this post is in no way shape or form, bashing anything that any of you had to say. Just giving it to you from my standpoint, and didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers if I came off that way. ;-) Peace..........

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com ]]> Danny Danzi NoticeboardWed, 07 Jun 2000 19:13:03 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1974#msg-1974 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1974#msg-1974
Dowloading propreity, copy righted songs without paying either the artist or the label is against the law. No two ways about it.

Now this does not make Metallica less the hypocrite. Metallica encourages their fans to tape their live performances (which is still copy righted material) and trade them. For them to promote one form of piracy and to go out of their way to stop the other is hypocritical. One has to wonder if they have ulterior motives. (One may first have to wonder if they are smart enough to have ulterior motives. ;)

Having said the above, I regualrly break the law :)

The big picture is that the Internet will radically change how music is delivered to customers. As is, I am not suprised that music stores are dropping their back catalog CDs, since those discs can be found for 25% less on the Net.

This is just the start. As people become more accustomed to shopping on the Net, more and more of even the recent releases will be sold via the Net. I personally have not bought a single CD in a real music store in over two years (and this has nothing to do with the emergenge of MP3s or Napster.)

Another big picture change that the Net will bring is how record labels will advertise their product. Nowadays, to break a new artist they have to get radio or video airplay. The logical next step as I see it is for for record labels to run their own Net radio station via broadcasting either MP3s or RAs. I am actually surprised the "Big Four" of MHR (N&T, Z, MTM, and Escape) have not created their own Net broadcast station. It is such a good idea.

I am sure that Surfpunk was saying "what he said" at the start of this post and now is not liking what he is reading, since I don't think real music stores have much of a future as is, unless they radically change too. the change I have in mind is for real stores to not carry any stock. The store could burn CDs and inserts on demand. All of the middle men will be out of business here. This will happen in my lifetime :)

barking on,
Big Dog
]]> Copious K9 NoticeboardWed, 07 Jun 2000 04:38:09 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1874#msg-1874 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1874#msg-1874While your post was a little long you made all the correct points. I don't the sales figures but one of the early RIAA vs. MP3 fights, the RIAA said they lost millions in 1999, when the sales figures showed the opposite.
I too am an audiofile. I have over 3,000 cd's many rare out of print. And yes why do we have to pay $100 on e-bay or risk having some lawyer grap your info for downloading on Napstar the first Vinnie Vincent CD. Jack your point is right about reissiue.
And I also download rare b-sides from here and Napstar. But then I hunt for the real thing at a fair price. Take Bruce Dickinson. I downloaded from Napstar like 7 b-sides of his. He says h is going to put them out some day. Well guess who will buy that.........ME!
So the free MP3 thing is simle:
Track what is being downloaded. If it is out of print.....re release it!
As for "the artists formally known as Metallica". This band sold out a long time ago. I would suggest they watch "Behind The Music" and try to remember when they were a metal band. I talk to a lot of people and the one Metallica sound off is this "They are putting out so much stuff all the time that I have to use Napstar to hear it until I save up".
Don't worry Lars I have a spare room if we ever make you broke.
]]> Eric NoticeboardSun, 04 Jun 2000 20:58:25 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1872#msg-1872 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1872#msg-1872
Excellently written posting. I didn't want to get into this whole Napster thing again but I do want you to consider some other issues it raises.

Where do you buy your CD's from?
In your posting you gave the examples of sales figures from NSYNC and BRITNEY in the US. Absolutely phenomenal figures, but over here in the UK it's a different matter altogether. Although the industry over here is talking sales up the fact is that traditional specialist music retailers are under threat due to heavy discounting of chart product (NSYNC, BRITNEY etc.) in non-traditional outlets like supermarkets etc. AND the electronic retailers popping up on the net every five minutes. Add to these problems the ability for people to get the product ('coz that's what it is, 'product' ) for FREE of the net via Napster etc. and you can see the problems we are facing. So my company is about to adapt to the changes in the market by REMOVING ALL BACK CATALOGUE MUSIC FROM ALL IT'S STORES!. That's right. What's the point of having all this music available for people to browse through and puchase there and then when people are clearly happy to wait 4/5/ days for it to appear in their mail box? Radical? Maybe but in order to survive the bosses have decided (rightly or wrongly) to take these steps to keep the company alive. There are already strong rumours that another high street music chain will be in trouble before the end of the year.

So my point is that the jobs and livlihoods of thousands of people like myself who have made music and the love of it our lives work ARE AT RISK. Ultimately, direct downloading of music will put out of business all the people who have kept this scene alive including the mail order guys. Note also that one of your repliers says that he can now get his hands on the entire Z catalogue that he couldn't get before.
Bad news for all of Z's artists then. (That's Algers fault though for not sorting his distribution out)

I don't want to go on for ages but this 4000% figure. Just where did that come from?
A CD costing us £10.21 goes out at £15.99 (£16.49 in some other stores), but if it's a CHART CD like BRITNEY it could be discounted to as little as £10.99. Now take out the overheads of running a store of six staff, wages, heating, lighting etc. and that's a hell of a lot of CD's you've got to sell to make money. And we did used to but it's just not the same as it was.

Finally I just want to say that I support the use of any software that allows fans to obtain rare and deleted product otherwise unavailable. I love the net and think it's another useful tool in marketing music across the world but something is going to happen to protect artists recorded output and I suspect it will be the encoding of all CD's at source preventing them from being recorded AT ALL.

Now look what Napter's started.]]> Surfpunk NoticeboardSun, 04 Jun 2000 20:18:04 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1861#msg-1861 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1861#msg-1861
]]> Mike NoticeboardSun, 04 Jun 2000 06:10:17 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1858#msg-1858 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1858#msg-1858 Robert NoticeboardSun, 04 Jun 2000 03:31:28 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1849#msg-1849 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1849#msg-1849
Also Napster is a fantastic thing for US. THere are enough AOR/MHR Mp3s online there; you just need to find them. SO we can listen to bands which we maybe heard alot of but never would get a chance to buy (example is the WHOLE Z-records catalouge; here in Austria i couldnt manage to find even one shop who sells it. ;-((( ( )

c ya
ALEX
NP: Spiritual Beggars; Ad Astra]]> Alex siedler NoticeboardSat, 03 Jun 2000 20:04:26 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1845#msg-1845 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1845#msg-1845subject. You must be a writer, great job!



]]> Dave NoticeboardSat, 03 Jun 2000 17:12:50 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1838#msg-1838 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,1838,1838#msg-1838
Well, I guess it's time to inject a dose of lively talk into the board, cause things are looking kind of blah. During my absence, you all must have gabbed and bickered like beauty salon ladies about the Napster thing, so here's what I think. As it was, you were discussing it before Metallica did their thing:

So, is Napster Evil? In principle, yes. You are taking for free what is being sold thanks to a technological loophole. But let's face it, folks, all this talk about the lack principles and morals in stealing have nothing to do with the real issue the RIAA is concerned with, do they?? It's just nice to seem self-righteous, which is why that imp Lars Ulrich will go on and on about Right vs Wrong, and the morals of stealing. The true issue, of course, is money. The big honchos of the recording industry - as well as the wealthy artists - are qucking in their collective boots that this represents millions down the proverbial drain. Don't be fooled by the "morals" argument, as the prime concern for the parties involved is money....most of these people have no moral authority to be talking like Holy Rollers (particularly when they're screwing around on their wives/girlfriends, backstabbing others to climb another rung on the corporate ladder, and many more in a long list of hell-condemming activities).

So yes, using Napster is wrong. But see, clever people know that it's simple-minded & stupid - indeed, even dangerous - to look at issues in black & white. Few things are ever that simple. Most people I know use Napster the way I do. And this is it:

a) Mostly, I hunt down stuff that isn't readily available. I have downloaded tons of B-sides, live tracks, interviews, acoustic versions, etc, from loads of great bands from Bon Jovi to Harem Scarem to Bryan Adams and back. You want to put these unavailable tracks on the market? Fine. Otherwise, please have the courtesy to let me get my rare stuff in peace.

b) Getting my grubby hands on out of print music. If I want to downlaod an MP3 of, say, "Just Between You and Me" from Lou Gramm's deleted second solo album I can either get it from a used CD store (after hours of sweaty hunting through crapola bins) or download it speedily from Napster. Either way, Lou and producer Peter Wolf will not see one cent because the album bombed and is no longer sold. The smelly redneck who runs the used CD shop, who would get any and all profits from the sale, isn't entitled to any artistic rights, so any and all arguments against Napster go down the poop tube there....

c) Downloading the occasional mainstream song. Here's where things get murky. Sometimes, I'll go and download something from, say, Elton John, Tina Turner, Tom Petty, maybe even a guilty pleasure like *gasp* Britney Spears. So, I'm stealing money out of their pockets, right? Not necessarily. These are songs I would not have bought anyway; that's the reason I don't have them in my collection already. I mean, a compulsive CD buyer like myself would have shelled out the money for the latest Tom Petty years ago if I had wanted to. But I didn't and I never will. It just isn't worth it in my estimation if I only like one song. So, when Napster is available I get the one song I liked but was too cheap to ever buy. In a weird way, it even works in Tom's favor because by listening to the Nap songs I might even become a fan and start actually buying his stuff.

This same thing happens with other people, too. One of my best friends adores Whitesnake. But he's an incredibly cheap bastard and will *never* open his wallet to pay 16 bucks for a CD. When Napster came out, he started downloading WS songs, but he wasn't ever going to buy 'em. My brother is sadly a closet rap fan (yes, the whole family is ashamed) but hasn't paid for a rap record in his life. Now he downloads Snoop Dogg and shit like mad. And still, he will never pay for a rap record in his life.

The other thing is, people will not stop buying CDs! Metallica has said it doesn't mind losing fans, but what it doesn't realize is that half the people who downloaded their songs aren't fans to begin with, otherwise they would have already had a CD. The other half probably were fans downloading rare tracks and will probably be pretty pissed at their once-favorite band. Hell, even down here in Mexico3 of the most popular radio stations - I shit thee not - have announced *they* have banned Metallica permanently. Part of what bothers people isn't the lawsuit as such, but a lot of the posturing and endless balbbering by that blithering idiot Lars Ulrich....they could've just released a press statement and not gotten so involved, but with Lars shooting his mouth off saying all sorts of self-righteous stuff about his band being the greatest and that they will still sell in the millions, and that his art will live forever, etc, etc, ad nauseam people get pissed and want to hurt his band.....not necessarily because he is rtight or wrong regarding the issue, just because he's an asshole. The money they think they're losing right now will really be lost when pissed of fans buy several thousand copies less or when less people go to the concerts. What kind of bothers me is the attitude, that the lawsuit is over-the-top, too: they want 100,000 dollars for every song downlaoded as compensation. Give me a break, that's excess if I ever saw it. So, is Metallica losing money? The figures for one, contradict them. Look at this:

"Here are some numbers from Soundscan that show CD sales are way up in the 1st Quarter of 2000, against the 1st Quarter average from 1995-1999:

Jan 2000 change from Jan 95-99 average +07.3%
Feb 2000 change from Feb 95-99 average +19.4%
Mar 2000 change from Mar 95-99 average +20.7%"

So, Metallica took the risk of playing devil's advocate and shot themselves in the foot. Makes no difference to me, I didn't like them anyway....never bought any of their records. Never downlaoded anything either, even when it was there for the taking. If anything, the figures show publicity has been good for them.

Anyway, I got sidetracked; the point is that when the new Sammmy Hagar, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi or Bryan Adams (etc, etc...) come out I will not be satisfied with downloading tracks. I want the whole CD because it's just sooo much better. I want the nice & neat package with the pretty pictures and satisfying image. So do all of you. Do any of you really think that the legions of rabid Backstreet Boys, Marilyn Manson, Will Smith, and Limp Bizkit fans will stop flocking to record store when the new album comes out?? Hell no! They will keep selling the same amounts. Look at the recent record-breaking sales with N SYNC and Britney Spears....

So the question now is...what happens to the smaller artists. The ones who don't depend on sales to buy their forty-first Ferrari, but rather to make a living. What about the Danny Danzis of the world? First off, MP3 of these artists are not even available. Period. You find me full MP3s of Tower City and Jeff Paris. You can search far and wide, there aren't any. But even if there were, I think that when it comes to our beloved AOR scene, the vast majority will actually buy the record. I, for one, like to feel that I support my small scene with money and will pay for the CDs of the AOR labels, especially in light of the fact that I think I'm getting my money's worth since it's THE genre I love. The people who listen to underground bands like ours (let's face it, that's what they are) are usually die-hards and won't sell the artists out. Let's remember that Napster is a reflection of what record sales are like out there....the bands and artists being downloaded the most are the most popular because they have ENORMOUS amounts of MP3s available through Napster. Which means that even assuming that someone is losing money, it would be N'SYNC and bands of that ilk. And N' SYNC can afford to lose money, since they sold a record-breaking 2.4 million albums in their first week and ride around in private jets shooting up (yeah, I guess they do despite their teeny-bop image). Well, the Danny Danzis of this world are still way too small for people to put them up on Napster and trade them, so there's no problem there. They're sort of protected by their own anonymity. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Those were the thinking man's arguments. The other one is simply the Robin Hood approach. Vengeance, payback, robbing the rich and giving to the poor, call it what you will. Many people seem to think that with Napster (under the assumption that you are taking money from the labels at all, that is) you're finally balancing the scales back in your favor. What I mean is: do any of you know what CDs cost? I mean *really* cost? They're worth nothing, fucking peanuts. I know because I had a friend who had a Record Store and he showed me what it costs the reocrd companies and the CD store and every middle man along the way. The profit margins are something like 4,000%. How many times have you felt ripped off? I know Socrates said you can't fix a wrong with another wrong (which is why I only half-agree with this posture), but even if I were taking money out opf these people's pockets (which I'm not, but if I were) it would be kind of nice for a change. God forbid Britney and Elton have one less Hundred Dollar Bill to wipe their asses with, or that some slick, scumbag record company executive can spend just a bit less on snorting coke in the back of a stretch limo with a abhorrently expensive prostitute. Fuck that, I'd rather let Don save 2 bucks to feed his starving children with.

Lighthearted opinions? Pissed-off remarks? Please do -

Cheers,
Jack.
Undead Tap-dancing Ghoul.]]> Jack. NoticeboardSat, 03 Jun 2000 12:38:07 +1000