I posted this as a reply to Dan Danzi way down there, but since it's almost at the end of the page, it'll probably get eaten up in a few hours, so I decided to put it up here again..............J. Hey boys & girls, 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. http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2001#msg-2001Mon, 20 May 2013 12:31:56 +1000 Phorum 5.2.16 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2054#msg-2054 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2054#msg-2054-------------------------------
For what it's worth I'm resigned to the fact that 'traditional' music retail outlets are ultimately doomed.

The fact that it is doomed may have much more to do with the Internet competition than say Napster. I may have only bought 10 mainstream CDs in the last two years, but I bought them on the Net instead of the local retailers. Now I may not be that typical (what was your first clue? ;), but I suspect that the buy-it-on-the-Net trend will only go up over the years. I only see the larger, nationwide retailers surviving. I do at least see them surviving.

Why?

Because a large percentage of the music buying public is rather stupid. Here in the US, most of our malls have CD stores which have astronomical prices and have lousy selections. These stores survive because mall shoppers will pay for the store's convenience (instead of stopping at the Best Buy/Circuit City which are located near the mall and which have the best prices). I never see these mall stores going away (or the Best Buys for that matter).

With the advent of broad band where everybody can have at least a T1 connection, retaill CD stores will be capable of buring CDRs and inserts on the fly making each store its own little CD manufacturing plant. CD retail stores then will no longer need to sink any money in inventory, which should allow them to lower their costs per CD. CDs also would no longer go out of primt in this scenario, which would be music to Jack's ears.

BD
]]> Big Dogster NoticeboardFri, 09 Jun 2000 03:52:15 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2053#msg-2053 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2053#msg-2053-------------------------------
If the RIAA & Metalligreed get their way and the use of Napster is deemed illegal, then it may just force the mp3 community back the way it was before... with FTP sites, email sends, websites and standard search engines... (ie the way it was BEFORE Napster came along) - I used to find MP3s quite easily then and can't see a problem if it happens again...


If Napster is demmed illegal, I predict that Napster will have a slight UI change to accept a IP address at startup and that non-US, rogue Napster server sites will pop up, which will end-around any US court ruling. The server site address may have to keep changing, but the current site addresses will certainly be published in USENET news groups or bulletin boards. The worst case impact for Napster user is that they will have to get an easy to find IP address before logging into the rogue Napster servers.

Not only has the train left the station, it is totally out of sight.

all aboard,
BD
]]> Big Dogster NoticeboardFri, 09 Jun 2000 03:26:10 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2039#msg-2039 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2039#msg-2039
Just my 2c...
Richard
]]> Richard Stewart NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 21:43:45 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2014#msg-2014 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2014#msg-2014
Damn! I didn't know this......speaking of which, was Def Leppard's latest a success? I heard it went gold (500,000 units) in the US, but what about toal sales? Is that good enough? I think Slang sold something like 3 million, so I imagine Euphoria has to top that, what with the much-touted return to roots style....

>>I just want to know why sales of music in the US are so much higher (pro rata) than here in England. It's been mentioned that sales don't seem to be suffering in the US but as I mentioned in my last post UK sales are nothing like they were. Are chart CD's being sold in Wallmart etc. at discount prices over there?

I don't really know - what are the figures?? Maybe the way American society works, everyone's a consumerist animal (look at the post I wrote to Danzi way below for reference! LOL). Yes, the K-Marts, Targets, etc.. of the US sell CDs, mostly of the more popular bands......the selection goes nowhere near that of a Virgin or Tower......

Well, what can you do? My condolences to the retailers. But don't worry - in some form or another, everybody's fucked!

Cheers,

Jack.
Undead Specter of Ché Guevara.
]]> Jack NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 06:23:49 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2011#msg-2011 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2011#msg-2011
So they aren't thinking cheap are they. A cassette single costs £2.29 and that contains at least 2/3 tracks and...a cover!]]> Surfpunk NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 06:05:06 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2008#msg-2008 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2008#msg-2008
For what it's worth I'm resigned to the fact that 'traditional' music retail outlets are ultimately doomed. At least here in the UK, and as I only work for one of the companies rather than own the business, I can at least move into other areas.
(Actually I'm going back to University anyway!) Maybe I'm just being sentimental but it is sad to see it happen.

There are a couple of points I'd like to mention though.This subject received the cover story in this weeks NME over here. The Napster sponsored Limp Bizcuit tour was mentioned and I was just thinking that if Napster lose this case in court to the artists, Fred Durst could end up having to pay for this tour himself! Wonder what he'll think of Napster then?

The other is not exactly Napster related. I just want to know why sales of music in the US are so much higher (pro rata) than here in England. It's been mentioned that sales don't seem to be suffering in the US but as I mentioned in my last post UK sales are nothing like they were. Are chart CD's being sold in Wallmart etc. at discount prices over there? Personally I believe a lot of the blame lies with the way the UK arms of the major labels promote music. Sony did an appalling job of promoting the new Matchbox 20 album in England including running out of stock in the first week! I just think UK labels are too 'style' conscious rather than being prepared to give the buyers what they want. The two biggest selling UK acts over the last year in the US were DEF LEPPARD and BUSH. A fact that has barely been reported over here because these are acts are not 'cool' and it would not look good for the industry to have 'old' acts out selling the likes of OASIS or the CHEMICAL BROTHERS. Put simply the truth hurts.

Lastly I just wanted to make everyone aware that the UK music charts are compiled from sales information ONLY, donated by key retail oulets (of which my company is one). So, if you don't shift units through these retailers you don't chart. If you don't chart radio won't play you. So, bearing in mind that most AOR is purchased in the UK via mail order it doesn't matter how many units are sold they won't show in the chart!

The US chart is compiled from sales AND airplay information so requesting your fave band on the radio really can make a difference. Wheras we can ask as many times as we want but if they don't wanna play it...they won't!

Sorry to get off the point Jack but I'd be interested to see if anyone's got any comments on this information as well.

Later...]]> Surfpunk NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 05:58:59 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2005#msg-2005 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2005#msg-2005>I think the solution that the RIAA (whatever) wants is for Napster and its clones to just go away (and maybe take the internet with it. ;) The whole record industry infrastructure is not set up for the digital super highway. IMO, the train has left the station. The record industry will need to reinvent itself, giving the Internet a huge role in the infrastructure.

Hey Dawg,

I agree. The scenarios I wrote about were meant as a compromise situation. Meaning, record labels are going to have to adapt too, no doubt about it.....technology has superseded the way they work. At the same time Napster, while it could be shut down, represents the many leaps and bounds in technology that refuse to go away. The world is changing and both must change with it. Labels have to change with the technology and rack their brains to find ways to make a profit, and Napster has to use its technology in adherence to existing legal standards in order not to risk being closed down. In the end, the things I figured were situations where both find ways to coexist peacefully in order to avoid either extreme situation.......

Of course the record companies aren't looking for a deal with the Nap boys. But they're going to be forced into something of that sort, which is sortof what I was proposing (though I am well aware that working out the details is hard as Bitch). Even if the legal framework changes against Napster and prohibits it, technology will simply catch up again and smack the labels in the face with an even stronger presence.

Cheers!

Jack.
Pudgy Man-Eating Savage (with chunky male tits).

]]> Jack NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 05:49:22 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2003#msg-2003 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2003#msg-2003
As for your solutions, I do not see one that can not be easily hacked. MP3s are just a series of bits. There is no way these bits can be identified in the Net traffic and removed. (As a side note, there is a Net community devoted to figuring out how Game CDs can be hacked and burned on PCs. This community is very mobile and have escaped all efforts to shut them down.)

IMO, the train has left the station. The record industry will need to reinvent itself, giving the Internet a huge role in the infrastructure.

How this impacts the future for the music buying public is anybody's guess. I do think that CD prices will fall dramatically, since the Net has made all of the middlemen in the music delivery biz obsolete.

BD
]]> Copious K9 NoticeboardThu, 08 Jun 2000 05:20:07 +1000 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2001#msg-2001 http://www.melodicrock.com/phorum52/read.php?1,2001,2001#msg-2001

Hey boys & girls,

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 03:01:14 +1000