The four judges in the two Napster trials decided to shut down Napster
not because of any abstract ideals or moral siding with "the majors" but
simply because Napster is very clearly illegal by the letter of the law. If
anyone is to blame, it's Congress, and even then it's just bad timing on
their part. The relevant statute is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992,
which requires manufacturers of home recording devices to pay royalties to
the recording industry in order to compensate for money lost by what would
otherwise be piracy. The act makes it perfectly legal to copy music on
cassettes, VHS, minidisc, etc, but computer-related products are nowhere on
the list. So hard disk and modem manufacturers don't pay royalties, and
downloading unauthorized MP3s is very much "piracy" and violators can be
prosecuted (and Napster was prosecuted because it was knowingly facilitating
mass piracy). It's probably just a fluke that
Congress didn't include computers in the AHRA, if the Act would've been
written a few years later, when the internet was really starting to take
off, they probably would've penciled them in and Napster would be protected.
But alas, here is a classic instance of an old law not being flexible enough
to anticipate a new technology.
Don't blame this on "the majors"; they're merely enforcing the law as it
stands. If you don't like the law, hound Congress, because they're the ones
who will really decide what kind of internet activity is admissible. If
they saw that enough of their constituents were really pissed off about the
Napster ordeal, they would probably happily amend the AHRA to include
internet stuff, and everything would be peachy. But part of the problem is
everyone blames the prosecutors (RIAA + Metallica et al) or the judges, and
fail to see the larger picture. RIAA/judges were simply playing by the
rules, which is their job. If a police officer busts you for weed it
doesn't make sense to direct your anger at the law enforcement, it makes
sense to get off your feet and petition the legislators, who really
determine what constitutes an illicit substance, or what constitutes piracy.
The courts have a little discretion here, but they don't have much.
Is something like amending the AHRA to include computers a real
possibility? Well, that's almost exactly what Europe is doing (under
different laws of course, but within the same principle of royalties
compensating for free exchange). A cover story in today's New York
Times addresses this very issue: how Europe is coming to terms with
"free music." Germany, France, Belgium, and Austria are wrestling with
proposals to add taxes to personal computers that aid the recording
industry. I think Germany may have already levied a special tax on CD
burners for this cause. The trouble remains that small independent labels
probably wouldn't see any of that; and besides it wouldn't do much to deter
the bootlegging industry, which is the real problem, not individual users
downloading songs. Because all of this legislation has so many problems and
loopholes it's all up in the air (see www.nytimes.com under Technology).
So you can continue to rip on RIAA/Metallica/Dr. Dre, but just remember that
(1) your precious Boards of Canada and countless other IDM independents are
vehemently opposed to Napster, and (2) that really skirts the issue
entirely. Congress is one body to blame, and also I think part of the
problem is that *everybody* charges too much money for music. Big
distributors and tiny distributors alike. Why does it seem like every 12"
single have to cost $9.99, often much more? Why does it seem like every
LP/2X12 have to be $16.99+? That's really a lot of money for an album.
Where does it all go? (somewhat hypothetical--although if anyone wants to
break it down for me I'm
all ears). It doesn't sound like the artists see much of that, and all the
middle men have to make a living too I know, but have albums always been so
expensive? Or is this just taking advantage of the good (soon to be bad)
economy? I suggest prospective repliers to this cost issue begin by
pointing out how ignorant I am, and then proceed, in the most condescending
tone possible, to examine the production line. At the end of your reply
remind me how much of an idiot I am. I would like to buy more music on
disc, but I'm so often deterred by these really high prices of "underground"
music. I see decent singles out there for $4.99 (e.g., the Ectomorph 12s),
but I kind of have to wonder when twelves that are widely available cost
three times that. But so many of you folks are right smack in the middle of
it, so feel free to clue me in.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org