Slashdot Mirror

this is a bit of good reading from Steve Albini. If you don't know who he is, well, he has been a figure on the indoe music seen from bands like Big Black and Shellac. He has engineered albums from Nirvana as well. His production style is often imitated. In short, he's the shit. Go here to learn something

First of all 100 bands make money touring, that isn't the same 100 bands that makes bank recording. There are bands that sell very few records, but do sell out high priced shows, Super Diamond is a great example as they don't sell any records, but they sell out a whole weekend of 1000 seat venues at $25 a pop. Jam bands are another one, Widespread Panic (sold out 4 dates at the Warfield in less than a week), Ween, String Cheese, etc have a fair number of people who go to all their shows, thus really driving up the the profit. Good for them, I don't really care for these bands but many people are entertained by them. 2 good places to see a fairly popular band's touring finances are Man or Astroman?'s talks money and Steve Albini's major labels: the problem with music

Read the Steve Albini Baffler article. Did the tour make money? No it grossed $50K an had $50,800 in expenses, and another 15K went to management. I know touring musicians, they make more money off selling records than they do playing live. Look at the size of venues, add up the total in tickets sold. Look at how many people are working. The money isn't there. I gave real numbers, why don't you give some.

Totally ghost written. That doesn't make it BAD, and I'm not casting dispersions on Courtney Love- I think its admirable that she would use her fame as soap box to tell the Truth, so props to her. But something about her doesn't strike me as a researcher.

Obligatory Steve Albini article

The artists will never see even the tiniest bit of the money. Check out this link and tell me how much of that money you think the actual artists are going to get: the problem with music by steve albini

The Steve Albini article is of course, spot on. The fact that it is almost 10 years old is remarkable, and it's a shame that things haven't changed much since then. The flagship punkrock fanzine Maximum Rock 'N' Roll devoted an entire issue to this topic back in 1994, in a groundbreaking (at the time) issue entitled, "Major Labels: Some of your friends are already this fucked", and it should be required reading for anyone who wants to resist the corporatization of music.

To really understand where are the money goes, you need to read The Problem With Music by Steve Albini, music producer extraordinaire.

An Excerpt: Recording Budget: $150,000 Producer's advance: $50,000 Studio fee: $52,500 Drum, Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $3,000 Recording tape: $8,000 Equipment rental: $5,000 Cartage and Transportation: $5,000 Lodgings while in studio: $10,000 Catering: $3,000 Mastering: $10,000 Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc expenses: $2,000

This topic is getting so damn boring.

*The difference between CD and DVD prices: This argument would be fine if you were comparing CD piracy with a rash of people sneaking into movie theaters without paying. By the time most movies are DVDs they've already recouped their costs. Thus the DVD is all profit. Shit, the movie theaters would sell them to you for 3 bucks and just jam them full of adverts for their next features coming out. Example: the point of the Fellowship of the Ring DVD is to get you to go and see The Two Towers in the theater ten times.

* Think there is a Problem with Music? There always has been. Welcome to the real world. This article is by Steve Albini. If you don't know who he is you shouldn't even be a part of this conversation.

* Do you know who is even on a major? What, you think that the label your favorite artist created is an indie? *heh* Yeah... right. If you think this I bet you also believe in Santa Claus and reach-arounds.

* Here is how to start an indie label.

Final Verdict All this comes down to people going to a swingers party, bending over and being surprised when they take it in the ass. What? Don't like the Major Labels??? Then DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC. DON'T SUPPORT THEIR ARTISTS. DON'T BUY MAGAZINES THAT THEY ADVERTISE IN. DON'T WATCH MTV/VH-1/BET/etc. DON'T MAKE THEM MONEY.

Jesus. You would think people would realize this. But no. They keep on going out and throwing money at the Majors. So how is it that they are supposed to change? If you really cared you would only buy indie stuff anyway. Go out, buy Our Band Could Be Your Life , crank on your Fugazi and don't pay attention anymore.

This topic is getting so damn boring.

*The difference between CD and DVD prices: This argument would be fine if you were comparing CD piracy with a rash of people sneaking into movie theaters without paying. By the time most movies are DVDs they've already recouped their costs. Thus the DVD is all profit. Shit, the movie theaters would sell them to you for 3 bucks and just jam them full of adverts for their next features coming out. Example: the point of the Fellowship of the Ring DVD is to get you to go and see The Two Towers in the theater ten times.

* Think there is a Problem with Music? There always has been. Welcome to the real world. This article is by Steve Albini. If you don't know who he is you shouldn't even be a part of this conversation.

* Do you know who is even on a major? What, you think that the label your favorite artist created is an indie? *heh* Yeah... right. If you think this I bet you also believe in Santa Claus and reach-arounds.

* Here is how to start an indie label.

Final Verdict All this comes down to people going to a swingers party, bending over and being surprised when they take it in the ass. What? Don't like the Major Labels??? Then DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC. DON'T SUPPORT THEIR ARTISTS. DON'T BUY MAGAZINES THAT THEY ADVERTISE IN. DON'T WATCH MTV/VH-1/BET/etc. DON'T MAKE THEM MONEY.

Jesus. You would think people would realize this. But no. They keep on going out and throwing money at the Majors. So how is it that they are supposed to change? If you really cared you would only buy indie stuff anyway. Go out, buy Our Band Could Be Your Life , crank on your Fugazi and don't pay attention anymore.

The income statement is a little hard to follow. For one thing, it doesn't have proper indenting for sub-items, so it's hard to tell which things should really be added up.

For those who think it's okay for bands to make nothing on recordings since they make all their money on tours--this band lost money on tours, which is typical, from what I understand.

well known essay

You can read Steve Albini's rant which breaks it all down. Be advised thought that this mythical band that Albini writes about would be more successful than 99% of the bands that try to make it.

Looks like once again it is time for the obligatory reference to Steve Albini's The Problem with Music.

The classic clue stick for the whiny, how hard is it to be in a band types.

Read the Albini Baffler Article, it lists the touring costs, and it is a net RED

If you think it's a myth, check out this article by Steve Albini. In case you don't know who he is, Albini is a career musician who, among his other accomplishments, produced at least one Nirvana album.

Make sure to check out his royalty breakdown at the bottom, based on his experience working in the record industry. It's pretty interesting stuff.

That for however much we love them Pearl Jam and Moby are in the top top top percentage of artists already. The vast majority of artists are fucked.

Campus Radio Stations are just as easily targeted to payola as anyone else (both in Canada and the US). What's worse is that Campus Stations subscribe to the Campus Music Journal's New Music Report, which is a Music Industry Magazine. This is where the whole formula behind "college first, corporate next" comes from, especially when it comes to alternative rock (largely in part by the success of Nirvana).

Seeing that I currently work at a small Campus Station in Canada, I can tell you the major differences between campus radio North of the border is that revenues of these stations are traditionally much less, and there isn't a station that is really much interest to CMJ. CMJ has a rating system for stations, where 1 is the LPFM college stations and 5 stations are the stations found at large college stations in the US. The largest stations in Canada are still only a 4 and the average campus station in Canada is a 2.

The Canadian Music Industry (If you can call it that, usually US success has to be obtained before anything else happens) has its own journals to determine what should be played, and payola happens here too. For example, to play and chart the latest Strokes CD (Which I thought sucked!) they sent us a ton of promo stuff to try and woo us and claimed to be my friend. The Strokes did get airplay because someone liked them, but all the extra crap wasn't necessary.

Of course, if you don't believe me about how the industry is invading everything but the pirate radio stations out on the fringe, check out A Rancid Amoeba's website and read both "Some of your friends are already this fucked" and "Bubba: The College Radio Music Director Webzine".

Radio in the US doesn't completely suck though. I heard that the Pacifica Network has recently solved some of their board troubles and should be back to bring good radio to the US. Also, I should also point out that CBC in Canada is government owned and rarely bends to the Music Industry rules. I recommend checking out 120seconds.com and CBC Radio 3.

They already have. Well, at least the artists have a valid gripe against them. As far as I'm concerned, the labels are the RIAA. It should really read "Recording Industry Middlemen of America".

Sorry, but that's just not true. As far back as 1991 (over a decade ago!) it was being widely reported -- just witness Dannen's excellent book Hit Men, which came out 7/91. Or the anti-signing screed "Some of Your Friends Are Already This Fucked", which I don't have a date on -- but I know I read months or years before Love's speech.

The problem's been around, it's been out in the open, but it's just now getting the attention it deserves because it's a convenient excuse for people who want to justify using P2P music networks.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not condemning people for sharing music via P2P, but if all these people are "sharing the tunes for the benefit of the artist", they should also be feeding the artists -- going to concerts and buying two CDs, three t-shirts, and six beers (how do you think bands get re-booked? Tip your damn wait staff!) Some people do. I applaud them. Most people, being lazy, don't.

I found this link to be far better than Courtney's ramblings. Besides which, I'll take Steve Albini's word over Courtney's any day of the week. Of course, Albini's opinion is pretty set, too, but at least there're more hard figures involved.

Herein lies the double edged sword: The Industry has all the $$$. They'll let you have some for awhile, but they will get it back in fucking spades. If anyone thinks the Industry gives one rat's ass about their artists, take note: Where is Hootie now? (not that I care ;)

Anytime you add a middleman, prepare to be screwed.

Actually, most of the "thousands of record labels" fall under the big 5. See:

Who Owns Who for more details.

Courtney Love, being nothing but an opportunistic sellout, would certainly see her fair share of the proceeds if anyone would.

Read the original essay by Steve Albini that that gold-digging no talent hussy plagarized during the napster fallout.

She's nothing but a corporate stooge pretending to be a revolutionary.

Or just go straight to some of your friends are already this fucked.

This reminds me of this wonderful article that's popped up on JWZ's site several times about the economics of the music industry.

It really sucks.

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/

The full text of Love's speech can be found here [salon.com].
It is an interesting read..

Another interesting read is here.

Highlighting the problems of bands signing up with the "Music Industry". Some of your friends are already this fucked.

If you think normal musicians make their living off record sales, you need to read "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini. Even if you manage to sell a quarter million copies under an unusually fair contract, you'd still be much better off working at 7-11.

Most of you aren't bitching and moaning due to the fact that you can't "listen" to your CDs in your computer.

The hell we aren't. I keep a big collection on shuffle at work. My girlfriend has a portable MP3 player. When we pay good money for music, we have the right to listen to it when, where, and how we please. To prevent fair use is to renege on the bargain made with the public, and IMHO they voided their own copyright the moment they tried.

Here is your chance to be a hero, start a company which acquires copyrights for stuff out of print, and no longer of commercial value, at that point you have every right to distribute this stuff as you choose. One such place (And I have done a lot of work for this place) is the Internet Moving Images Archive. for the most part, places such as OLGA are not doing the ground work to acquire the copyrights, although it looks like they are going to start an legal archive of tablature that has copyrights that allow open distribution, that is a good thing. I don't think that art needs to be commercial, my own art is paid for by me and posted around the city for everyone to enjoy, I have been offered money but turned it down, that was MY choice. Make your own art and you can choose what to do with it. The Harry Fox Agency has been selling their own Tabs for years (1920s or earlier), they didn't just try to get into the act after someone else. See Steve Albini's rant on the music industry, the Publishing Advance, that is from someone such as the Harry Fox Agency, that is one of the few positives in the whole thing.

cite your source show me the figures that prove this, because this is nothing more than a pipe dream! Most small bands ONLY make their money from Mechanical Royalties, which comes from BMI/ASCAP, and the record company see none of it. Touring is generally just done to promote a record. See Steve Albini and Dave Lowery's rants on the subject (Both of them are much more aquainted with the recording industry than you are!!)

Touring is usually money losing, See the Steve Albini Baffler article if you don't believe me.

you want to make your point you might consider posting your source of that information.

Stop propagating this myth

Actually they make their money from publishing rights. Read the definitive state of finances for small bands

major lables: the problem with music

TVT is an independent in only the loosest sense of the term. They also have been prone to some nasty, nasty behavior with their artists.

They're the biggest indie label, with revenues of about $50 million. They're also notable for doing a lot of very major label things to their acts - they don't fit the "artist-friendly" indie image. Notably, they severely damaged the WaxTrax! imprint, changing its focus.

Also, they completely screwed over Trent Reznor. They prevented him from releasing material, and in order to allow him to leave his label contract, they retained financial interest in all future albums.

Don't be fooled. TVT is not a "small" record label. They just happen not to be affiliated with any of the seven... no, six... no, five... no, four majors.

They operate the same. Observe this link to Steve Albini's explanation Some Of Your Friends.

Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit?

The artists won't be making a profit, with the possible exception of huge stars like Madonna (who has her own record label). The labels will be receiving any and all money from this proposed settlement, which is a main reason why they wont execept it... The figure they can start their own service and recieve all the money.

I think the reason why so many people are anti-RIAA is because they are taking the position that they want to stop Napster to protect the artists, when the artists really need protection from the RIAA. I know I was anti-RIAA before Napster ever existed.

Their contracts are so complex that the artists don't even realize how much they are signing away. I heard an interview with Rob Zombie once where he remarked that the latest White Zombie album had sold more than 5 million copies... Yet they recieved far less that 5 million dollars. That's LESS than $1 a cd.

Here is an excellent essay by Steve Albini (famous indie rocker and producer... He produced at least one Nirvana album, among many other projects) entitled "Some of your friends are already this fucked" that details at what lengths the labels will go to screw you. Great reading and may go a ways to answer your question.

Josh Sisk

Lots of people like to talk about artists' rights without paying any attention to what they artist actually think.
Ben Folds Five
Billy Corgan
Chuck D
Courtney Love
DJ Spooky
Dr. Octagon
The Grateful Dead
Prince
Radiohead
and many, many others have all spoken against the record industry, and these particular artists have in fact spoken in favor of napster-style distribution.

Click here for more information on why the record industry has to die.
Thank you.
-the wunderhorn

I've bought Black Sabbath Vol. 4 no less than 4 times in my life. At least 3 on LP (cause they wear out) and once on CD. I used to think this was OK because Sabbath (in whatever lineup) was getting the cash. As I've gotten older I've learned that they are getting much less, actually nothing from resale on their music (see the article by Steve Albini that was posted on /. here )

This is the same for all the Zappa and other music I've re-bought on CD. What to do ?

Would you rather spring the cash for re-buys or have your name/id/muscial prefs tracked by a record company ? BTW - if you think M$ is evil (and I agree) ask any entertainment lawyer (who you're sure will be honest with you) how thoroughly, completely and consistently record labels rape 9999 out of 10000 bands they work with. I know, I was in the biz for a while. Get a turntable and record from LP to CD. That's what I do. I do it for my own use and I don't redistribute. Screw record companies and copyright. The bands don't get anything out of it anyway. And especially screw Metallicorp !

just my 2 pfennig

http://www.arancidamoeba.com /mrr/problemwithmusic.html.

That being said, unless you've gotten successful on your own terms, a la Metallica (hehe), you are not going to sell out, you are going to get fucked.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Not[e] to everyone: when you sign a contract, read it first. If you don't like it's terms, don't sign it, or try to negotiate better terms.

You mean when she plagiarized Steve Albini see Some of your friends are already this fucked!. By the way this article had been posted on Slashdot, with proper citation, repeated before Courtney Love ripped it off.

Steve Albini (he produced Nevermind) did an article entitled "some of your friends are already this f*cked" , which was what Love pretty much quoted. Great speech, don't get me wrong, but read Albini.
here's one of many mirrors: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/ problemwithmusic.html

Steve Albini wrote a rant on labels and finances that's a little more accurate on the numbers (but no friendlier) than Love's article. It shows more modest sales (250K), and then goes through the numbers to show the band in deep financial shit even after that strong a showing in the market...

Most record companies are controlled by the RIAA major labels, whether they admit it or not. More's the pity.

(I see that http://www.musicisland.com/ claims to be "the home of Independant Music on the Web" but their web site is a mess of pop-up add windows, unreadable fonts, and critical links that are busted.)

I took a look at the Napster "Buycott" (http://www.napster.com/buycott.html) and it looks okay, though they've only got about fifty or so artists (not labels) in the list. In any case, I would definitely recommend DJ Spooky: he's an incredibly prolific, really creative ambient sample artist.

As a place to find cool new stuff, I'd recommend: http://www.aquariusrecordsSF.com/. This is a record store that does mail orders. They essentially refuse to stock anything they don't really love. Subscribe to their email newsletter: it's full of really chatty, detailed reviews of nearly every good new release in the last month.

Even if someone's not owned by a major label, a semi-indie will often have ties by distribution to a major. Plus, for a few years now, major labels have been creating scam indies that are wholly owned but marketed as an indie. Pretty dirty stuff. Maximum Rock-N-Roll had a great chart when they did the major label issue that had the infamous Albini article, plus Punk Planet has reported on it a bit. There might be some info on punkplanet.com.

Also, I believe the Southern distribution alliance is pretty clean of major ties. They handle Touch&Go, Dischord, Simple Machines, and other great indie labels. There's also an online CD/Vinyl retailer who seems to handle a lot of indie labels. The name's escaping me though because I only found them once through a broadcast.com banner. Outersound? Intersound? This ring a bell with anybody?

Slashdot posters seem to automatically discount everything Jon Katz writes these days, so I wanted to post a link on his behalf:

The problem with music, by Steve Albini.

It's a famous article in which Albini basically outlines just how major recording companies fuck bands out of all their money. If you've read the recent Courtney Love speech on the same issues, this is where she got her ideas.

-jacob

• they get the overwhelming bulk of the money from music sales
• they tend to not pay musicians money, but rather 'prepay' by bringing the musicians to hugely expensive and elaborate music studios and mastering houses and charging these services against royalties
• in so doing, they are able to throw a LOT of money into establishing a system where it appears that only major label acts are any good and the 'minor leaguers' don't seem worth listening to.

As for the profit margins- it's a bit shocking. I will refer you to Steve Albini's "Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked" for a look at typical band incomes assuming a _high_ level of CD sales and a successful tour, and another data point would be "Destroying The Artist's Right To Escape Contracts Through Bankruptcy" which is a news article exploring a recent trend of multiplatinum artists attempting to get out of brutally unfair contracts because they are literally left bankrupt and owing large amounts of money (for instance, owing their real landlords money, as the landlord doesn't take payments in label-purchased studio time- the landlord would be wanting actual money, and the multiplatinum major label star may not ever see any actual money).

The RIAA only has to show the statistics: virtually no unsigned artists are benefitting from Napster. At least, not in comparison to the huge volume of commercial music distributed by the major labels. And Boies himself claims that only 2% of artists are signed. Therefore, by the RIAA's stats, his particular assertion about controlling the means of distribution is unfounded.

The truly great (and, sadly, late) guitarist Howard Roberts once observed, "People don't know what they like-- they like what they know." That's why RIAA-controlled acts overwhelmingly dominate Napster traffic; obviously, people are sharing what's popular.

And why is it popular? Because the RIAA's member companies fund the "independent" promotion which buys that popularity. Reread Courtney Love does the math and Steve Albini's The Problem With Music . In that sense, the RIAA already controls Napster, just as it controls the longer-established distribution channels-- illegally, immorally, and (at least to this point) untouchably. Whether Boies can establish this in court is another matter.

As an unsigned artist, I've considered making my music available on Napster, but what good would it do me? Even if all mention of RIAA-controlled acts vanished from Napster servers overnight, how would a Napster user find me tomorrow? How would s/he know what search terms to use?

Sadly, about the only promotion method available to unknown, unsigned artists like myself is shameless, if subtle, spamming, such as this.
--
syrynx

...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a. Wah

--

over at Salon

The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.

--

Speaking of April Fools....Did anyone see this? Here's my retort

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.
--