More Opinions About Napster From Offbeat Artists

Masem writes "At the recent CMJ Music Marathon, there was a large discussion about the effects of Napster on not-so-mainstream recording artists by the artists themselves. Some for, some against, but an interesting opinion was given by John Flansburgh of TMBG, in that Napster comes between the direct connection of the band and the music listener in cases where the band already had a strong net presence."

Comments

Think about the "hippie capitalism" remark

[Junks Jerzey]

Lots of people are blindly bashing Cracker for that comment, but think about it a minute. Napster is a corporation that's out to make profit. Acting like music should be freely passed around is their marketing angle. So while everyone rah-rahs about freedom and intellectual property and all that, money goes into Napster's pockets. This isn't some goody-goody freedom thing, it's captialism. The faux "we don't like big bad music corporations" attitude sucks in all the net hippies. So is it hippie capitalism? Sure is.

Metallica and Napster

[Hrunting]

The more I hear about Napster, the more I agree with what Lars said during his Slashdot interview. There is nothing inherently wrong with people sharing music and it should be encouraged, but Napster is a for-profit distribution model, and Napster does not ask artists if they want to be a part of its distribution model. You can hear that echoed in TMBG's quote that Napster has broken the link between them and their fans. No one asked TMBG if they wanted to be part of this distribution model, and they've already got their own Internet-based service setup. Thus, I think they have a right to be miffed.

Most artists are in favor of people sharing music, and in fact, most artists encourage it. However, there's a fine line between 'sharing songs' and distribution, and Napster is walking that fine line (personally, I think they're a distribution service). They are performing a free service, but they are also making every attempt to make money off that service (contrast it with Gnutella to see a scheme that is more of a true sharing service). If an artist says, "Hey, I don't want my songs distributed through you because you're making money off of it, not me," Napster should respect that.

Of course, that really has no bearing on where the RIAA is fighting from, but I can see where artists, especially established artists with money and careers invested in their distribution chains, would be upset with Napster.

what the f**k?

[.Tacitus.]

Ok, I had a big long thing here but it didn't make sense to me soooo to sum up.

• Napster is:
• basically radio
• not the best thing out there (imagine if the RIAA found out about IRC)
• for some people the best thing since sliced bread

• Artists are:
• providing entertainment - if it sucks they don't get money
• puppets of their record company
• cry babies - don't like the way the system is changing, find another job

This is just my opinion. Things change all the time. Our bodies, our governments, and our attitudes are constantly evolving. People resist change but if you do not change you WILL become extinct.