I don't usually respond to this increasingly prevalent little piece of misinformation, but I'm in a particularly cranky mood. Basically, you're flat out fuckin' wrong! The ideas you're spreading about the responsibilities of corporations has absolutley no basis in fact. A publically held company is free to commit whatever manner of goodwill and charity it's officers fancy. There is not a contractual obligation to maximize profits with a total disregard to all else. A company is not legally obligated to disregard the ethical considerations if those considerations might hamper profits. Your vision of a corporation is a convenient strawman setup for an easy attack by those incapable of honest and forthright debate.
Further, donations are protected speech in the U.S. Don't like it? Tough! Go whine to the Supreme Court.
Although the author makes some interesting points, everyone must keep in mind that he is bemoaning the loss of a potential which has never actually materialized. Specifically, the possibility of a small independent band being able to make a living by selling music. The truth of the matter is that this has never been a possibility. While I sympathize with his hopes, I don't think it was ever a likely possibility. Examine the economics: a band manages to sell 10,000 cd's at eight dollars a pop and profits $40,000--this is the MP3.com model. First off, even if this was possible it would only realistically support a duo or a very, very frugal power trio. Secondly, the expectation that an independent artist/band could sell 10,000 cd's over the internet is completely unrealistic--granted, there could be a few, but they would be a rare exception.
Now for a little history lesson: the author dicusses the era of indie record labels, but I don't think he understands what the reality of the times were. Speaking as someone who was involved in the "indie" scene of the mid-eighties--and I was a late comer to the scene as it was already dying out by 1985--I can state with absolute conviction that, with only a couple of exceptions, no "indie" band ever made a living selling records and tapes. At the time records/tapes sold for around $8 to $10 and the bands got between $1.50 to $2.50 of that--very generous compared to the big labels. But consider the fact that even some of the all-time punk rock classic albums did not sell more than 10,000 copies. In fact, I would bet that SST Records--the biggest and most successful of the "indie" labels--did not have a single album in their catalog which sold more than 40,000 copies over the course of the entire decade.
So how did early punk/indie/alternative stars make a living? Despite what the author claims, the only way small independent bands have ever made money: LIVE MUSIC. The early alternative scene was centered around live bands playing in clubs and albums were for all intents and purposes only a promotional item to entice people to go and see bands in a live venue. It might also surprise people to know that many of the "stars" of the early punk/indie/alternative scene worked jobs like being dishwashers or pet store clerks(Ian McKaye, of Minor Threat, and Henry Rollins, of Black Flag used to work together in a pet store).
Anyone who wants a good idea of what the times were like should get their hands on a documentary called "Another State of Mind" made around 83. It follows many of the biggest early punk bands from the west coast on a cross country tour. As it turns out, they all had quit their jobs and get a hold of a crappy old school bus to house and sleep around 25 people. They managed to make enough to keep everyone from starving and keep gas in the bus. Notable highlights from the film are Mike Ness composing "Another State of Mind" on an acoustic guitar while coming down from a bad time with heroin and the Minor Threat performance at the end.
Of course, if you expand your horizons beyond rock, pop, and country you will find that making a meager living from live performances is the norm for musicians. Jazz, Blues, and Bluegrass artists have never had the option of getting wealthy from selling copies of albums. And yet these genre's have produced consistently far higher quality music than either indie or mainstream rock/pop/country. Just goes to show that money and art really don't have much to do with one another.
So, what legitimate use is napster? please someone show me ONE legitimate napster server/user.
Well, if you weren't such a moron you might have done a little simple detective work and proven to yourself that there are thousands of users out there using Napster for perfectly legitimate and entirely legal purposes. Try running a search for any of the following: Grateful Dead, Dave Mathews Band (or DMB), Martin Madeski and Wood, Widespread Panic, Phish, Dylan, Paul Simon...etc
All of the aforementioned bands allow their fans to trade recordings of their live concerts providing there is no profit in the transaction. So go ahead and prove it yourself, run one of the above mentioned searches and you will find people engaged in perfectly legal and band/artist endorsed activities.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't usually respond to this increasingly prevalent little piece of misinformation, but I'm in a particularly cranky mood. Basically, you're flat out fuckin' wrong! The ideas you're spreading about the responsibilities of corporations has absolutley no basis in fact. A publically held company is free to commit whatever manner of goodwill and charity it's officers fancy. There is not a contractual obligation to maximize profits with a total disregard to all else. A company is not legally obligated to disregard the ethical considerations if those considerations might hamper profits. Your vision of a corporation is a convenient strawman setup for an easy attack by those incapable of honest and forthright debate.
Further, donations are protected speech in the U.S. Don't like it? Tough! Go whine to the Supreme Court.
That's a common myth around here, but it is largely untrue. What about the early corporate participants in the the South African boycott?
Although the author makes some interesting points, everyone must keep in mind that he is bemoaning the loss of a potential which has never actually materialized. Specifically, the possibility of a small independent band being able to make a living by selling music. The truth of the matter is that this has never been a possibility. While I sympathize with his hopes, I don't think it was ever a likely possibility. Examine the economics: a band manages to sell 10,000 cd's at eight dollars a pop and profits $40,000--this is the MP3.com model. First off, even if this was possible it would only realistically support a duo or a very, very frugal power trio. Secondly, the expectation that an independent artist/band could sell 10,000 cd's over the internet is completely unrealistic--granted, there could be a few, but they would be a rare exception.
Now for a little history lesson: the author dicusses the era of indie record labels, but I don't think he understands what the reality of the times were. Speaking as someone who was involved in the "indie" scene of the mid-eighties--and I was a late comer to the scene as it was already dying out by 1985--I can state with absolute conviction that, with only a couple of exceptions, no "indie" band ever made a living selling records and tapes. At the time records/tapes sold for around $8 to $10 and the bands got between $1.50 to $2.50 of that--very generous compared to the big labels. But consider the fact that even some of the all-time punk rock classic albums did not sell more than 10,000 copies. In fact, I would bet that SST Records--the biggest and most successful of the "indie" labels--did not have a single album in their catalog which sold more than 40,000 copies over the course of the entire decade.
So how did early punk/indie/alternative stars make a living? Despite what the author claims, the only way small independent bands have ever made money: LIVE MUSIC. The early alternative scene was centered around live bands playing in clubs and albums were for all intents and purposes only a promotional item to entice people to go and see bands in a live venue. It might also surprise people to know that many of the "stars" of the early punk/indie/alternative scene worked jobs like being dishwashers or pet store clerks(Ian McKaye, of Minor Threat, and Henry Rollins, of Black Flag used to work together in a pet store).
Anyone who wants a good idea of what the times were like should get their hands on a documentary called "Another State of Mind" made around 83. It follows many of the biggest early punk bands from the west coast on a cross country tour. As it turns out, they all had quit their jobs and get a hold of a crappy old school bus to house and sleep around 25 people. They managed to make enough to keep everyone from starving and keep gas in the bus. Notable highlights from the film are Mike Ness composing "Another State of Mind" on an acoustic guitar while coming down from a bad time with heroin and the Minor Threat performance at the end.
Of course, if you expand your horizons beyond rock, pop, and country you will find that making a meager living from live performances is the norm for musicians. Jazz, Blues, and Bluegrass artists have never had the option of getting wealthy from selling copies of albums. And yet these genre's have produced consistently far higher quality music than either indie or mainstream rock/pop/country. Just goes to show that money and art really don't have much to do with one another.
So, what legitimate use is napster? please someone show me ONE legitimate napster server/user.
Well, if you weren't such a moron you might have done a little simple detective work and proven to yourself that there are thousands of users out there using Napster for perfectly legitimate and entirely legal purposes. Try running a search for any of the following: Grateful Dead, Dave Mathews Band (or DMB), Martin Madeski and Wood, Widespread Panic, Phish, Dylan, Paul Simon...etc
All of the aforementioned bands allow their fans to trade recordings of their live concerts providing there is no profit in the transaction. So go ahead and prove it yourself, run one of the above mentioned searches and you will find people engaged in perfectly legal and band/artist endorsed activities.