Upstart Aimster Woos Capitol Records

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Wednesday September 27 4:12 PM ET

Upstart Aimster Woos Capitol Records

LINK

By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Aimster yes. Napster no.

As the music industry tries to stop song-swap service Napster, at least one major record label and a music retailer are forging ties with Aimster, a new player in the controversial Internet file-sharing sector.

EMI Group Plc's Capitol Records, home to the Beatles, teamed up with Aimster this week to promote a new album by the band Radiohead, said Johnny Deep, a spokesman for Aimster.

Industry sources also said a major music retailer, Trans World Entertainment Corp., is soon expected to announce an alliance with Aimster, which attaches a Napster-like browser to AOL's Instant Messaging service (AIM).

Trans World and Aimster declined comment, although Deep has said Aimster is talking with many companies, including Intel Corp.

``Obviously, the major retailers and record companies are looking for compelling technologies to connect with the consumers,'' said Jonathan Potter, executive director for Digital Media Association.

``Aimster appears to be more a manageable and limited form of file-sharing in terms of distribution. It doesn't surprise me that copyright owners are more comfortable with this sort of application,'' Potter said.

Capitol's Radiohead promotion ran for only two days, ending on midnight Tuesday, but it represented a big turning point for the evolution of file-sharing applications like Napster, Scour and Gnutella, which have for the most part been reviled and sued by the entertainment industry for allegedly facilitating copyright infringement.

Deep said he believes Aimster is well-insulated from lawsuits because it is used for many non-infringing purposes and because users have more control over files since they share only with people on AIM ``buddy lists''.

In contrast, Napster lets users download from anybody else on the service, which has drawn over 25 million users.

``We firmly believe that instant sharing is the killer app (application) on the Internet,'' said Deep, noting that Capitol wanted to exploit Aimster's program to notify users about the Radiohead album and direct them to a promotional Web site.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents big record companies like Seagram Co. Ltd.'s Universal Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music and Time Warner's Warner Music Group and EMI, has filed suit against Napster for copyright infringement.

Both sides will be at a court hearing on Monday in San Francisco where the record industry will try to convince an appeals court to reinstate an injunction that would prevent Napster from operating.

Some experts, however, claim that Aimster could actually represent the biggest nightmare to date for studios trying to stop film and music swapping online because of its ability to piggyback on AOL's popular instant messaging system.

Aimster is drawing attention from companies like Intel looking to invest in peer-to-peer (P2P) computing for use in businesses.

America Online, which has over 60 million AIM users, has said it was aware of the service and is monitoring it. Aimster has signed nearly 1.5 million users since its launch on August 9 and now offers file-sharing capabilities to a potential pool of 140 million instant messenger users.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 27, 2000

Answers

Wasn't he that guy in Edward Scissorhands?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 27, 2000.

Johnny Depp was Edward Scisorhands. Don't know if this is a misspelling from the author, but he spelled it Johnny Deep, not Depp.

Napster or Aimster, it's all good for the music industry IMO. Just wait and watch, it's all gonna benefit them in the end. They're just jittery with this new technology and trend.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 27, 2000.


They're jittery because people are using Napster to steal other people's copyrighted works. If these services work with the music industry to prevent this, then everyone will be better off.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 27, 2000.

It isn't a question of whether Napster will work with the music industry, it is a question of whether the music industry is willing to work with Napster. Filing a lawsuit to ban them from the Internet doesn't seem to be a good indication that they are interested in working with them.

-- (greedy@record.labels), September 27, 2000.

Oh. Sorry. Depp was Edward Scissorhands. But wasn't Deep in 21 Jump Street? I know that Johnny Deep guy from somewhere...oh I know, he was in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. That's it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 28, 2000.


It isn't a question of whether Napster will work with the music industry, it is a question of whether the music industry is willing to work with Napster. Filing a lawsuit to ban them from the Internet doesn't seem to be a good indication that they are interested in working with them.

Perhaps if Napster would make a more concerted effort to stop people from using their service to steal copyrighted works, they would find that the music industry would be somewhat more interested in working with them.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 28, 2000.


People that log in on Napster are voluntarily making their files available for sharing. No stealing involved. It is easier for some people to believe the propoganda that the recording industry is spreading through the media than it is to see for themselves by using it.

-- (ignorance@no.excuse), September 28, 2000.

EXCELLENT article. Read it.

Excerpt...

"The issue may come down to what Napster lead attorney David Boies, who successfully prosecuted the Department of Justice's case against Microsoft, describes as "the definition of commercial or noncommercial uses." It is perfectly legal for consumers to copy music for their own enjoyment--i.e., noncommercial use. Congress has even declared, in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, that it is legal to make recordings and lend them out to people, provided it is not done for commercial purposes. It is unlawful, of course, if it's done to make a profit. "The law does not distinguish between large-scale and small-scale sharing or lending," insists Boies, who puts Napster's chance of winning the suit at fifty-fifty."

-- (learn@before.bashing), September 28, 2000.


People that log in on Napster are voluntarily making their files available for sharing. No stealing involved.

LOL, except that what they're making available for "sharing" are works copyrighted by someone else.

People are downloading copyrighted works without paying for them. That is called "stealing."

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 28, 2000.


Johnny deep was the guy in "Devil in Miss Jones".

As far as Napster:

How do they make their money? While they may not be "selling" copyrighted material, and while it may be perfectly legal to share files as long as those files are not used commercially, but the bottom line is the company is making money off these artists by providing the infrastructure for sharing files. It may be that none of the users are involved in copyright infringement-but the fact Napster's profits, if indeed they have any yet, are made of the trading of copyrighted works, then it logically follows they owe a royalty to the artist.

I too hate the big records companies; I am a deadhead from way back and trading tapes has always been a part of that experience-the band realized that a long time ago and openly supported it. If an artist does not give explicit permission, then napster should not make a red cent off advertisers by trading on the name of the artists whose files are transmitted via the napster infrastructure.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 28, 2000.



hmmmm is apparently having some trouble understanding the law...

"Congress has even declared, in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, that it is legal to make recordings and lend them out to people, provided it is not done for commercial purposes."



-- (wake@up.idiot), September 28, 2000.

"Congress has even declared, in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, that it is legal to make recordings and lend them out to people, provided it is not done for commercial purposes."

Great, so if they're just lending them out, we should know the time frame when everyone is going to give all that music back to the owners, or simply delete the files. So, when will they be giving the files back? I'm sure it will be very soon. LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 28, 2000.


Well, lucky for moi I did not have the patience to download the 'borrowed' music. It TOOK 4-ever, but I SWEAR, IF I could have, I'd of returned it...

Yeah that and a nickel will buy you a soda, right? ROFLMAO

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), September 28, 2000.


more excerpts...

"Although Napster might seem to be taking sales away from the record companies, CD sales have actually increased in the Napster era--by $500 million this year alone."

"One of the great ironies of the Napster affair is that there really isn't a business, not yet."

Napster isn't making money from this. The technology is something that is worth a lot of money, but the recording industry is trying to destroy it rather than use it to their advantage.

-- (learn@some.facts), September 28, 2000.


"Although Napster might seem to be taking sales away from the record companies, CD sales have actually increased in the Napster era--by $500 million this year alone."

Did sales increase due to Napster or in spite of it? And how do the sales of recordings that were available on Napster compare with those that were not?

Napster isn't making money from this. The technology is something that is worth a lot of money, but the recording industry is trying to destroy it rather than use it to their advantage.

LOL. Perhaps you should re-read the article that started this thread.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 28, 2000.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ