I don’t have a problem if people share music. Hell I’ve been making mix tapes for you guys for over twenty years.

Napster basically perfected peer-to-peer software sharing which is going to be at the crux of the business model for application service providers, as well as most current software manufacturers. That is a tremendous plus. It’s something that the loser that started Napster didn’t even think of when he opened for business. They also helped to standardize the format in which most music files are stored (MP3).

Shawn Fanning, the poster boy for the modern larceny took existing technology (From IRC—according to company information) and utilized a shared database in order to allow people to swap music.

The people that actually understand business, and the Internet saw and embraced this technology for what it was. Microsoft and Sun have been planning to phase out traditional marketing pipelines in favor of a Peer-To-Peer (P2P) plan as they grow toward a network-based product model.

Sharing files didn't originate with Napster. People have been sharing files on-line since the advent of email. Messaging products such as ICQ helped to make it easier for the end user to do this. However there is a difference between individuals doing it for pleasure, and a company generating revenue off of copyright infringement.

My other main issue rests at a societal level. We continually want everything for nothing. We don’t want to pay for anything. We want to be entertained, but don’t want to have to pay for the privilege. The common comeback is that the users are “sharing” files. They want to check out the songs before they pluck down the money to buy the full record. Or they don’t like any of the other songs on the record except the radio hit. Hmmm…Maybe I’ll just pop down to Safeway and “share” a six-pack of Diet Pepsi, and a loaf of Sourdough. Why should I pay for it when I can “share” it. Safeway makes tons of money, and I don’t even know if I’ll like the bread. This way I can taste it, and tell if I want to buy the whole loaf or not. Hell the soda could be flat. This way I can make sure that is of the highest quality. Then again after I’ve shared it, I may not want it as much, and may not want to buy it.

But what’s the problem? Everyone seems happy?
The consumers are happy. They’re getting stuff for free.
The hosts are happy they’re getting paid and having to pay nothing in the form of product costs.
Most of the artists are happy because people have exposure to their material, and pay to see them perform, and buy their merchandise. They don’t care because they see little of the money associated with copyrighted material. The more people that have the music, the more that come to their concerts, and the more that they get paid. If it’s done through a company like Napster, or Radio, or Record stores, they don’t care.

The only people that aren’t happy are the Recording companies. The people that pay for studio time a just a weensy bit upset because they are unable to recoup the cost of production, distribution and promotion of the product.

Rhetoric abounds stating that everyone is buying the same amount of music as before Napster, and not to be alarmed. The facts say something altogether different. In the second half of fiscal 2000, record sales were down 7% over the results for F99. 50 million Napster users…7% decline in sales…Hmmm? Yeah the hearsay is probably closer o the truth than the facts.

As a result of the legal action under way the only way that Napster will be able to survive is by charging a monthly membership fee.

The sweet irony here is that if Napster does begin charging a monthly fee, they’ll lose their market…people came to Napster because they would rather “share” the music than have to pay even a monthly access fee for it.

If people are going to pay a sub-contractor to provide them with a list of available titles, why wouldn’t they pay the record labels to do the same thing, and probably get a better product, over more reliable channels, with sweeter perks too (Time Warner anyone?).

Napster threw a $1 Billion bone to the recording industry on Tuesday 20 February. The Industry barked and spit the bone back. Napster is in the position of having to figure out how many files have been transmitted and from that how much they owe in back royalties.

This should break the company.

However greed will cause other more underground file “sharing” services to pop up. As soon as they get to the point where they begin to attract a lot of attention the FTC will step in and crush them.

In spite of my Marxist tendencies, I am in no way an opponent of free enterprise. I have a problem with Mr. Fanning who set up a company, then sought, and received venture capital for a business whose sole purpose was to engage in the Grand Theft of intellectually and artistically copyrighted material.

I think that what a lot of musicians fail to see is that they gain a lot from recording contracts. They gain capital for studio time, a slim amount of publishing revenue, and promotional revenue paid to radio stations to get their songs on the air. If profits dry up as a result of services like Napster, then their gravy train may soon dry up as well.

I figure that if a band or recording company wants to use the net to promote a band that’s fine. They can set up a site where folks can download files. The main difference is that the artists and the producers have a lot more control over what is being distributed, and since it is they who are responsible for the music/software/film, they stand to gain the benefit or risk the loss on their own terms.