"The new artists die, sensations who might have sprung from unknowns to astonishing careers as so many did because of Napster" Please forgive me for being so dense but could you list all the new artists who sprung from unknowns to astonishing careers because of Napster? Go ahead and use extra paper if you need to. Looking on the bright side of things, with all these people dead, the freeways will be a little bit less crowded and mommy earth wont get as warm quite as fast. Who says there isnt a silver lining in every black cloud? Posted by: Stone, on September 4, 2002 09:16 AM

So, the shuttering of Napster has left independent artists with no way to make music, no way to promote it, no way to sell it? That's almost as goofy as Glenn Reynolds' claim that CD sales are in decline because people are "boycotting" the "industry" and turning to independent artists and labels. What a myopic analysis of reality. You're apparently 17, and thus are forgiven your naivete in this realm. Reynolds and his fellow "The RIAA Sucks" adults don't have that excuse. There are legitimate issues of copyright to be sorted out -- even down to the very basic fundamentals -- before one can claim that copyright holders are morally bankrupt for protecting what is now legally recognized as their property. Posted by: J. Madison, on September 4, 2002 11:36 AM

Wow, Stone, real insight there. There is a lot more music out on the 'net than commercial radio will play, or are you one of those folks who subscribe to the "if they were any good, they'd be in the Top 10" mentality. As for copright, I am all for it. but I think that the RIAA definitely shot themselves in the foot on this issue though. To avoid condencension, I am a 37-year old who owns 300+ recordings. I buy a lot fewer CD's now not because of a boycott, but because of fewer outlets like Napster to let me decide for myself if a band or an album was worth my money, beyond the one overplayed song on the radio. Additionally, with the RIAA clamping down on file-swapping and Internet radio, where will we find out about new music in general, or in a specialized niche for that matter? I bought more music when I could check it out first on Napster. Posted by: rob, on September 4, 2002 12:54 PM

J. Madison While the death of Napter hasn't completely invalidated all avenues of self-promotion of independent artists, it has limited those availible. The question I present to you is if the major labels actually have a moral right to hold the copyrights of the music that they produce. They don't write it, they don't play it. They only provide the venture capitol to make the album. Capitol that is legally required of the artist to pay back. The RIAA claims that they are protecting the artists interests in cracking down on copyright violations. The most that artists get after everyone elses cut of album sales is 10% of MSRP. The most! Until you gather more of the facts of the true issues involved, I suggest that you refrain from slinging insults in other directions. Posted by: Dale Stevenson, http://veriqhan.blogspot.com on September 4, 2002 04:09 PM

uh rob.... i am well aware there is much more music out there than what is played on commercial radio stations. my question was simple. i'd just like a list of all the artists who have sprung from unknowns to astonishing careers because of napster. your comment about having fewer venues in which to evaluate new and unknown music without having to shell out a few bucks for it first cuts to the heart of all this nonsense. napster wasnt there for the benefit of the artist...it was there for the benefit of YOU so that YOU wouldnt have to put out YOUR dollars. the fact that you might have eventually bought some cd's by bands you picked up on at napster doesnt lessen the egregious nature of downloading copyrighted material for your own personal use. Posted by: Stone, on September 4, 2002 08:09 PM

Dale, Of course labels have a "moral right" to hold music copyrights -- if those rights have been assigned to them by the creator(s) of the intellectual property. If I write a song, and sign a contract that hands the rights to someone else, what's immoral about that? Nothing. Similarly, if I make an album and sign a contract that gives me a paltry 0.0003% cut of its revenue, nothing immoral has taken place. It might indicate I'm a lousy businessman, but it doesn't make anybody evil. It really is naive to romanticize Napster -- or at least its facility for copyright infringement -- as some bastion of Glory, Truth and Right. Posted by: J. Madison, on September 4, 2002 09:11 PM

J. Madison Of course labels have a "moral right" to hold music copyrights -- if those rights have been assigned to them by the creator(s) of the intellectual property. That would be "legal right" to which you are refering. And those contracts to which you are refering are legally coerced from "letters of intent". The letters of intent have no terms other than that each party agree to sign a contract of mutual agreement, and that neither party may enter a contract with a third party with regards to publication, production, and/or distrobution of material contained in the as yet unwritten contract. Suppose I told you I could give you a job at my company making $100,000 per year. You agreed to come to an interview, but before you could enter you had to sign a letter of intent. You could at that point walk away from the job and go look for a different one, or you could sign it and go into the interview. You are told that you may take a job for $15,000 per year. You say "no thanks" and leave. On the way out you are reminded of your "letter of intent" and are told that you may not interview for any other job. That's moral? That's right? That is how the record companies recruit new music. Napster, in the beginning, was illegally facilitating infringement of copyrights held by the major record labels. Later, the company was attempting to do just at the labels asked: Stop distributing THEIR music. So what about the rest of the music that was legitimately traded? Unless you can offer a solution to the problem of the ill informed artists getting clearly taken advantage of, you can do nothing put spout rhetoric. And if you say that it just required education on the part of the artists themselves, then you, clearly, would be the myopic one. Posted by: Dale Stevenson, http://veriqhan.blogspot.com on September 5, 2002 11:09 AM

Hi Madster/AIMster, Agh, injunctions suck. I have lots of problems with intellectual "property rights," but it will be a couple years yet until I could be called an "expert." But for some free legal advice from the blogosphere besides Glenn Reynolds, a good place to start might be Jeff Cooper's site (he's a prof at U. Indiana): http://cooped-up.blogspot.com/ I don't what his views are on IP exactly, but he's very friendly and has links to a number of other lawyers' blogs. Good luck and stay strong... --E Posted by: Eric, http://antidotal.blogspot.com on September 7, 2002 04:15 PM

I agree with the previous poster that "there are legitimate copyright issues to be sorted out." And that's where my agreement ends. I do agree with the comments of Dale Stevenson, which I found reasonable and well articulated. After I rant a bit, I want to check out Jeff Cooper's Site, which Eric recommended. A big part of problem, as I see it, is that corporations have enjoyed the legal fiction that they are "persons" under the law. This is and has been the excuse for the erosion of Individual and Civil Rights in this country for a long time. Another part of the problem is in the legal language "work for hire." Contracts that contain this language should be nullified, in my humble opinion, when they are used - with perfectly legitimate legal precedent behind them - to screw People (not just Artists, but Consultants and others as well) out of the product of their work. It is an ongoing peonisation of the working man. For the Producer of Value, "work for hire" usually amounts to...seems in practice to be defined under the law as...total and complete assignment of all rights irrevocably in perpetuity to the purchaser. Furthermore, it often amounts to and / or is combined with (in the music industry) indentured servitude. If You don't believe me, read a recording contract, read the UCITA legislation, the DMCA, and then go read "Courtney does the Math" at Salon. I linked it from http://www.stoned-out-loud.com in the "Articles of Note" box. While Your there, it might be good to look at the other articles written by working Musicians as well, Janis Ian's, and Steve Albini's "The Problem with Music." So I have a problem, not with "work for hire" per se, but with how it has been applied in the Music and IT staffing industries. For starters. Another part of the problem is Copyright law. The manner in which Congress has allowed the Industy lobbies to write legislation in exchange for campaign contributions has polluted the very concept of law itself, and the DMCA is a good example. It is an instance of the original intent of protecting intellectual property rights being turned inside-out and on it's head, converted into a tool for the legally fictitious "person" of the corporation to subjugate and rob the real living breathing creatively producing Person in the populace of their very means of livelihood, and the fruits of their labors. (brings to my mind the title of a great Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. essay "In a manner that would shame God himself.") Next, is the question of innovation, the freedom to do it, and the freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States of America's Bill of Rights. The real issue behind the RIAA/Napster case is the First Amendment, and our Freedom to peacefully assemble and share our ideas and music together in this very large virtual room that is the internet; Mankind's collective Living Room. That's what John Perry Barlow was talking about in his (linked) "Napster and the Death of the Music Industry." I wrote 2 articles at osOpinion speaking to these very points. The first is sort of a cyber rap called "We're Goin' BoomBoomBoom" and can be accessed at http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/DavidManchester/DavidManchester6.html ; and the other is called "The Right to Bear Silicon - Dismounted Drill Tactics and Real Operating Systems" at http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/DavidManchester/DavidManchester8.html . I did a couple other pieces there that bear on these issues, also. "Abolished Copyright will Kill Open Source" at http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/DavidManchester/DavidManchester4.html , and "First Amendment, Captive Markets: P2P's Real Issues" at http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/DavidManchester/DavidManchester9.html. The problem the RIAA/MPAA has (and the IT staffing industry, among others, as well) is that they are used to riding the Artists and Producers of Value like cattle, and want to enlarge their Yoke to include the rest of us. *And it ain't gonna happen.* They can buy all the Congressmen they like, pass as many laws as they like...bottom line is, if they take the law down that road, it is the system of laws and jurisprudence that will suffer...as it is suffering now the loss of respect and credibility Judge Patel's and other's goo-headed decisions have engendered. When the law deserts the People, the People go elsewhere. ("...and when laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws." - kidding) This isn't an opinion, just an observation of Human Nature. So, what p2p needs to do is create a sharing application that incorporates micropayment, while keeping the Artist in charge of his own work. Anything less isn't worthy of pursuit, imo. It's time we, the People, reclaim some lost ground. Yowza. Feels good to get a good rant out now and then! :-| So, in summary, Sir, shame on You for Your age-ist patronising of our Hostess ("You're apparently 17, and thus are forgiven your naivete in this realm"). Don't go handing me any ""The RIAA Sucks" adults don't have that excuse". This RIAA Sucks adult, and legions of Artists and Producers, and Human Beings who have inaliable Rights endowed by their Creator have plenty of excuse. And one can, in point of fact, "claim that copyright holders are morally bankrupt for protecting what is now legally recognized as their property", when one opens one's eyes to the context in which those copyrights were acquired: deceptively and/or coercively obtained "work for hire" contracts under which the Artists/Producers were required to hand over those copyrights. Oh, yeah. Perfectly legal, legal as Church on Sunday. And that makes it less reprehensible, uh, how? It doesn't. So, yes Sir. Morally Bankrupt. So, how to address it in a "government of Laws and not of Men?" All we have to do now is work the miracle of real campaign finance reform and elect representatives that will do so, instead of being puppets of their corporate paymasters. That, and create a p2p file-sharing micropayments system that is GPL'd. -fwiw dcm btw, since I got so carried away here, I might as well not let a perfectly good rant go to waste. An edited version may appear on Stoned Out Loud. Posted by: David Manchester, http://www.stoned-out-loud.com on September 9, 2002 09:47 AM

Well lets put it this way I am all for copyright laws however the death of napster does hasten the availability of the proliferation of live music. Not bootlegs but artist supported live music tradings. Now this is legal and unless that music is pirated it is not profitable to anybody. It can be very difficult to come by these recordings unless you are skilled in the way of finding them. Napster allowed music to be traded furiously between fans. So if one heard about say Howie Day, upincoming artist one could go on and download his live recordings. This phenomenon can make people a star overnight, which is at no cost to the record company that will eventually sign them. anyone with enough backing could be heard. It is sad that we in the process of outlawing these venues for purposes of trading such music, although one can understand why. Hopefully sites like futhernet will help to legally spread tyhe music that people should have the right to download. Posted by: Ryan C., on September 11, 2002 12:22 PM