Tim J. Beedle


Original publication on Lycian Scribe in September 2000.


The Business of Bitching: The Napster Issue


Aaaaah, Metallica. Long hair loses its popularity, so they get haircuts. Heavy metal becomes passe so they start calling themselves alternative. In fact, our pals Lars, James, Jason, and Kirk look so clean-cut now that they've begun to think like lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, instead of continuing their role as the epitomy of white trash pop culture. Let us all take a moment now and mourn the passing of the once adrenalized group of metalheads responsible for songs with titles like "Seek and Destroy," "Pulling Teeth," "Creeping Death," and "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)." May the memory of this once mighty group never die as long as those of us remaining have heads to bang.

What brought about this unfortunate demise? Over the past several months, while most American citizens were busy concerning themselves with who would be the next person voted off the Survivor island, those in the music industry were popping Xanax and practicing Yugoslavian stress reduction. What had them so worked up? Well, if you don't know by now then you've probably been on a Sabbatical to study Yugoslavian stress reduction yourself. We're talking about Napster here, kiddos, and if you're not familiar with it yet, you may as well settle down and get comfortable. You have some catching up to do.

In early 1999, Shawn Fanning, a then 18-year-old freshman at Northeastern University, created a computer code that allows users to easily swap MP3 files with each other while online. Considering he was a college student, Fanning was probably too stoned to realized what he had just stumbled onto, but from this humble beginning Napster was born.

Fast forward 18 months. Napster now stands alongside beer kegs, PlayStations, and bongs as a dorm room essential. It's been estimated that 3/4 of all college students currently use the service. In fact, many universities have found that campus web access has become sluggish due to the high volume of people logging on and exchanging music files through Napster, prompting several universities to cut off access. And as popular as the site is among the blue book sect, they're just the beginning. Napster boasts approximately 20 million users now, and predicts an increase to 70 million by the end of the year.

One of the reasons for Napster's popularity is how simple it is to use. You sign on, download some software, install it, and you're set to go. What the software does is allow anyone else who uses the service to access and download any MP3 files you have stored on your hard drive while you are online. Likewise, as long as they remain online, you have access to any MP3 file stored on their hard drive. You also have access to the MP3 files stored on the hard drives of the one million or so other Napster users online at any given time. If you're looking for a recording of Frank Gifford and Regis Philbin singing a duet of "The Lady is a Tramp," if it exists (and I'd imagine it's at least been sung, whether it's been recorded depends on how drunk they were), you can most likely find it on Napster.

The problem with all of this is that the service is absolutely free and that all of these music files are being exchanged without permission from either the artists or the record labels. More to the point, Napster has taken off like a bottle rocket full of nitroglycerin. Money is being made, but not a dime of it is being paid to the record labels and you'd better believed they're making enough noise about it to give even Fred Durst a headache.

Which brings us back to Metallica. In April, the group filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Napster, which has still not been settled. This lawsuit has stirred up more trouble in the music industry than Eminem at a GLAAD rally. Over the past two months a rift has formed in the record biz. On one side you have Metallica, Dr. Dre, and all of the music suits, who hope to shut down Napster for good. While on the other side you have Fred Durst, Chuck D, Courtney Love, and several million (probably intoxicated) Napster-supporting college students to contend with. The line has been drawn, both sides are armed, and so many musicians have been speaking out about the issue that I feel like I'm watching the MTV Music Awards.

The first victory was claimed by the anti-Naps on July 26th, when a federal judge ordered the shutdown of Napster, claiming that the service encourages piracy and breaks all copyright laws. It was a short celebration. On July 28th, an appeals court granted Napster a last-minute reprieve and gave the pro-Naps their first victory. As it stands now, Napster can stay open for business. The case is going to be revisited in September, when the actual trial will most likely begin. Whatever the eventual result, it's sure to be a bloody battle and one hell of a show, one that will hopefully provide us with plenty of people to laugh at over the next few months. However, make no mistake about it my friends, this battle WILL decide the future of music.

That future is the Internet. Most people are aware that music on the Internet has been a topic of interest among the record execs for the past few years. Most record companies see the Internet as a powerful tool that could be used to distribute their artists' music. All they needed to do was find a way to exploit it. Unfortunately, they took too long and the distribution technology found its way into the hands of music lovers, who have absolutely no understanding of how the music business works. That's right, my friends, music is a business, and a very lucrative one at that. Somebody needs to post Puff Daddy's bail and pay for Britney's boobs, and that person is everyone who was suckered into buying their last albums.

Music lovers are the reason music is currently thriving on the web, not music execs, and a lot of people are really pissed off about that. Of course, the majority of them are record execs, but interestingly a lot of musicians have sided with them. Metallica and Dr. Dre have been the loudest on the subject, but whether they should actually be considered musicians is arguable. Recently, many other musicians have decided to take a stand against Napster and have formed an organization called Artists Against Piracy (AAP). AAP have become a sort of Asian shop owner in the whole Napster debate; they're all over the Net telling people that they need to pay for that music they're thinking about downloading. And then, of course, you have the lawsuit, dangling above all of this like a disco ball in an old John Travolta movie.

Are the several million people who use Napster to download the latest Sisqo classic committing theft? (Personally, I think they're all middle-aged adults and other white-collar types who are too embarrassed to walk into Tower Records and buy a copy of "Thong Song"). It would stand to reason that if an individual writes and records a song, he (or anyone that he chooses to represent him) should have all rights to that song, right? Yes, of course, that's not in question here. What IS in question is whether that individual should even care about those rights. I'll try to explain.

First of all, let me say that I can understand patents. If Bill Bugkiller invents some sort of new and improved flyswatter, I could see why he would want to patent that idea so that no one else could copy and market it before he gets a chance to. I have a harder time understanding copyrights. Copyrights protect the rights of artists, and that's all well and good, but it would seem to be at odds with my definition of an artist. In my mind, artists are people who use one artistic medium or another to express themselves. They typically have a message they want to share with the world. For a quick example, consider what I'm doing with this rant. I would never seriously call this or anything that I write art, however, I do believe that writing is an art form. And the whole point of "ranting" is to express yourself, to sound off about something that's bothering you. That's basically what art is, and if it's GOOD art, it can transcend simply making a statement and become something greater, something that can enlighten and expand your perspective.

I truly believe that art is God's greatest gift to all of us, and it's something that very few of us are capable of. An artist's motivation should be to create art, to express himself and bring something beautiful or meaningful into this world. Sure, it can be entertaining as well, but true art should go beyond that (that's why I don't consider myself an artist or my writing art, I seek merely to entertain and occasionally piss all of you off). This is different from an inventor's motivation, which is primarily to make money (what sort of statement can one really expect to make by creating an improved flyswatter?). That's why I can understand patents, but I don't always understand copyrights. If people could freely take and develop an inventor's idea without permission, the inventors could never be sure they would receive any of the money their products generate. They would then lose their motivation for inventing and our method of pest control would never have gone beyond pet frogs. However, with an artist the motivation is different. If someone downloads a song without permission or without paying for it, well, isn't that just spreading the artist's message around even more? And don't they want their message to be spread? It may be costing them some royalties, but money should be secondary to having their art seen (or in this case, heard) and appreciated.

I could understand why an artist wouldn't want someone else to steal their art and pass it off as their own. For this one reason, I can understand the necessity of copyrights. However, that's not what's being done here. In fact, it's the love of the artist that motivates Napster users to download their song.

Now, I know why this argument isn't going to hold bongwater. Quite simply, I may view musicians as artists and music as a form of art, but most people in the industry don't. They see music as entertainment, and entertainment (unlike art) is driven by money. While I don't deny that music entertains, I disagree that it's merely a form of entertainment. Survivor is entertainment. The Jerry Springer Show is entertainment. Malcolm in the Middle is shit that thinks it's entertainment. Music, however, is art, and you don't become an artist to make money. I have plenty of artist friends who will be more than happy to back that statement up. If anything, this whole issue has shown us who the true artists are in this industry, and who's just in it for the money. Look at the "artists" who are supporting AAP. It's not Dylan, Sprinsteen, Hill, and DiFranco. It's Aguilera, Morrisette, and Bon Jovi.

Now I want to make sure that I'm not misunderstood, I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be paid for their art. I'm just saying that a true artist creates art whether they're paid to or not. Artists need to eat, just like the rest of us (only not too much, nothing inspires skepticism in me like a fat artist). If Napster is causing them to lose money, perhaps Napster should be shut down.

However, before we all log onto Napster to download that ultra-rare recording of David Hasselhoff singing an a cappella version of "I Will Survive" while we still have the chance, let's look at some facts (something I don't typically do, but we'll try it on for size). Record sales have risen over the past year at a fairly steady rate, despite the popularity of Napster and other similar websites. A recent Rolling Stone poll of 5,000 of its readers showed that only 8% of them have been buying less CDs since music became available for free on the Internet. 54% of them are buying the same amount of CDs that they were before music was available on the Web. And 36% actually claim that they're buying more CDs now than ever before. Furthermore, the same poll shows that 83% of those polled have NEVER decided to not buy a CD that they wanted because they could download it for free online. Rolling Stone also revealed that half of the respondents admit to having less than ten MP3 files on their computer hard drives. All of this would seem to indicate that Napster-users view the service the same way that we look at radio. It gives them the opportunity to hear new songs and artists. Music that they may eventually go out and buy.

Even if they decide not to buy an artist's CD because they can download the best songs on it off of the Net, how much of an impact are we really talking about? We can never know hard numbers, but it's a pretty safe bet that the music business will survive, although hopefully not without a few casualties. In the 1970s, movie studios sued VCR manufacturers in an attempt to stop the sale of the devices. They claimed that they lost money because VCRs allowed users to tape movies when they aired on TV. Obviously, this has proven not to be the case. People have shown the studios that they're more than willing to tape them in the actual theaters. Even the music business has faced this sort of situation in the past. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched a massive campaign against home taping in the 1970s. They would have been better served (considering who was in office at the time) directing the campaign towards our president.

I'd like to bring up one more example, one that I have yet to hear anyone on either side of the issue bring up, one that I feel parallels the Napster situation so closely that I can't believe no one has thought of it yet. The recording industry's problem with Napster is that it gives people access to music completely free. Their argument is that no one is going to buy an artist's CD when they can download the songs for free off of the Internet. Worst of all, no one responsible for creating the music gets paid. Guess what, guys? There's something that does pretty much the same thing that is actually funded by the government. That's right my friends, I'm talking about libraries.

A good library is to the publishing industry what Napster is to the recording industry. Libraries give readers free access to books. Granted, you don't get to keep the book, but how often do you really want to read Angela's Ashes? And do you know anyone that checks out a book from the library, reads it, then goes out and buys a copy of the book? Obviously, we can think of some exceptions, but for the most part it's a pretty close parallel. Authors don't receive royalties when their books are checked out of a library, and it can be argued that people buy fewer books because they have access to them in libraries for free, which costs the publishing industry millions each year. Yet, I've never once heard a publisher or author whine about those selfish and completely thoughtless library card holders, or hit a local librarian with a multi-million dollar lawsuit. In fact, most authors support libraries. You can see their pasty faces (there's a reason they're writing and not acting, after all) all over library walls, encouraging people to read.

That's the thing the publishing industry realizes that most of the recording industry has not. Libraries encourage people to read by providing them easy and free access to books. Not only does reading allow you to expand your perspective and gain knowledge about virtually anything-it also pays their rent. Without readers there IS no publishing industry. And libraries can be used to increase readership. Is someone likely to pay $8 for a paperback written by an author they've never heard of, even if the book looks promising? Probably not. But will they check one out of the library? You bet your royalty check they will. And if it's good, then more than likely when that author comes out with his next book, that reader is going to pick it up. And she's going to tell her friends about this great author she's discovered. You get my drift. Napster can work the same way. The recording industry just needs to concern themselves with something other than boy bands for a minute to realize this.

Perhaps accepting music on the Internet is difficult for the music industry because it involves changing the way the business works, and people don't usually like change. The music biz is currently all about marketing. The industry realizes that teens buy a larger number of CDs than any other age group, so they target teens in their marketing. They manufacture groups that look good on MTV and write songs for them that are catchy and aren't the least bit offensive (so they don't upset Mom and Dad). Talent is completely optional and oftentimes gets in the way. However, if the Internet becomes THE place to find new music, they can no longer work that way. Someone might download 50 songs a week, but the only CDs they're going to buy are by artists who have talent and integrity.

Finally, and most important, the record industry suits are going to have to lose the sense of self-importance that they are currently holding onto, because quite simply they aren't that fucking important. ArtistDirect CEO Marc Geiger was recently quoted in Entertainment Weekly explaining why Fred Durst is foolish for supporting Napster. "Long term, there won't be an industry and Fred won't have a band," were his words. Excuse me, Mr. Geiger. Perhaps so many years in the recording industry has damaged your hearing, so if I ever meet you in person I'm going to make sure to scream this at the top of my lungs so it will penetrate even your dense and completely clueless brain, but THAT IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF DONKEY SHIT I HAVE EVER FUCKING HEARD!!!!!! Even if Napster is the beginning of the end of the record industry, Fred will still have his band, but you, Mr. Geiger, won't have a job. And that's what you're really scared about, aren't you?

Quite simply, Mr. Geiger and those like him are in danger of becoming irrelevant. With services like Napster you can discover new music without having to hear it on the radio or see it on MTV. That means artists really no longer need record labels to heavily promote their albums, word of mouth will do just fine. Even an independently produced album by a local group could sell millions if enough people heard it and liked it, and knew where they can pick up a copy. Getting their albums in Tower Records and Blockbuster Music also becomes fairly unimportant when the CD can be ordered on the web.

We're a long way from anything like that happening, and I doubt that the record labels are in any danger, but it's a possibility. And that possibility is what has the suits crying more than Christina Aguilera at the Grammys. What will the music suits do if they find themselves suddenly unemployed? Maybe one of us should call CBS. I think they just found their next group of Survivors.



This piece uses quotes and statistics from two magazine articles: "The Future Is Now," which appeared in the July 6-20, 2000 issue of Rolling Stone, #844/845 (pg. 41-45) and "Sounding Off" which appeared in the August 11, 2000 issue of Entertainment Weekly, #554 (pg. 8-10).

Back