What do you think of Napster? Do you use it?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

Answers

I can't use Napster because I'm behind a firewall, so I used to use scour.net, but now they have all of those stupid pop-up windows that annoy me so I don't use that anymore. So if I want an mp3 of something, I usually have to ask my boyfriend to download it for me. Then again, I've bought more cds this year than I have in a long time.

I like using Napster, or at least knowing that it's available, but my world isn't exactly going to crash if it's taken down.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

I only used it to find songs from The Kids of Widney High, because I think that is the only place you can find the songs. I haven't downloaded anything since then. If it is shut down I won't really care.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

My husband uses it all the time. He's downloaded plenty of cds before they were even released in the US. He also uses it to get songs that are the only one he likes on a cd. What I like about it is that you can sometimes get songs that never even came out on cds.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

I think Napster is bad and evil and wrong. I live in Nashville, and have a degree in music business, which included course work in copyright. And of course, I have a lot of friends who are musicians, engineers, etc., and they work very hard.

Using Napster is against the law. The argument in the lawsuit is whether the folks who run Napster can be held accountable for the actions of their users. I think they will be, because there is no legitimate use for it.

If I have a band, and we put out our own CD, and I decide it would be a good idea to put up a free track, where am I going to host it? On my Web site (or IUMA or whatever), where anybody with Internet access can get to it? Or on my home computer, where only Napster users can get it, and then only when my computer's up and online?

I've got a million more arguments against it, but I'll stop now.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

Rebecca wrote:

I think Napster is bad and evil and wrong. I live in Nashville, and have a degree in music business, which included course work in copyright. And of course, I have a lot of friends who are musicians, engineers, etc., and they work very hard.

You have a degree in music business? Where can I get one of those? Did you have to take any math or science courses to graduate? Seriously.

Using Napster is against the law. The argument in the lawsuit is whether the folks who run Napster can be held accountable for the actions of their users. I think they will be, because there is no legitimate use for it.

No legitimate use for what?

If I have a band, and we put out our own CD, and I decide it would be a good idea to put up a free track, where am I going to host it? On my Web site (or IUMA or whatever), where anybody with Internet access can get to it? Or on my home computer, where only Napster users can get it, and then only when my computer's up and online?

You could put it on both. And seriously, no self-respecting artist that's going to make themselves available in any form online is going to have their site hosted by someone who doesn't expose them as fully as possible.

I've got a million more arguments against it, but I'll stop now.

Why stop? It's a forum for discussion, for cry-eye.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2000

A-a-ah. The blonde strikes! James! Paul! Catfight! I got $5 on the hosebeast.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

You have a degree in music business? Where can I get one of those?

Gosh, Keli, several universities across the country offer them. Take your pick.

Did you have to take any math or science courses to graduate? Seriously.

Why, yes! Just like any Bachelor's degree program, mine required math and science classes. But most Bachelor's degree programs don't offer you the opportunity to be The Voice of Fan Fair.

Look: I was promoting concerts when I was in high school, back when you were probably still stuffing mashed bananas up your nose. I've worked for artist managers, concert promoters, indie labels, major labels, radio stations, industry trade groups, and I've edited and written for several music magazines. The degree is not a big deal. I've been known to tell people I majored in underwater basket-weaving, and my diploma hangs over my toilet. I mentioned it to point out that I have a better understanding of copyright law than the average bear.

No legitimate use for what?

For Napster.

You could put it on both.

But why? I've actually never seen Napster, because I use a Mac, but as far as I can tell, it just presents a list of songs, right? There's no context, no description, no information for the the active music fan who seeks out new music, new artists.

Since the briefs started flying, the Napster folks have changed their pitch from "Only big-name artists!" to "But we're just trying to help struggling artists, honest!"

Horse puckey.

Unlike VCR's, which were vindicated in the landmark Supreme Court case Universal v. Sony, Napster serves no other purpose than to infringe copyright.

When you buy a CD, you are buying a copy. Posting an MP3 of one of the songs via Napster is tantamount to publishing (distributing copies of the work to the general public), which you need an express license from the copyright owner to do (indie artist or big stinkin' corporate record label, doesn't matter).

And seriously, no self-respecting artist that's going to make themselves available in any form online is going to have their site hosted by someone who doesn't expose them as fully as possible.

This makes no sense. When did Web hosts become publicists?

Why stop? It's a forum for discussion, for cry-eye.

Because I don't want to hog up a bunch of room in dear Gwen's forum (uh, like I'm doing right now) getting into pissing contests with people who don't care so much about music as they care about getting something for nothing.

I wish that every Napster proponent would read The Cheese Chronicles. The subtitle is "The True Story of a Band You Never Heard Of." It's a hysterically funny yet heartbreaking tale of this band and their broken-down van, and club owners who belonged in a mental institution, gigs from hell, etc. But the story isn't really unique; they're Everyband. REM went through the same bullshit.

Failing that, go to a club in your town, and talk to some of the musicians. They'll tell you the same stories; they'll just be set in a different town, and the characters will have different names.

You'll get an understanding of what these cats go through just to get to the point where it's feasible to record and press up a few hundred copies of a CD to sell out of the back of the van at shows. And if you can then begrudge them a lousy 99 cents to download a copy of one of their songs, you'll be hard put to convince me your soul isn't made of dry ice.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

"Using Napster is against the law."

Like, oral sex is against the law in my home state. The law? P'shaw.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

Like, Jill? Like, state laws against oral sex are like, stupid? But copyright law is, like, written into the Constitution, like, way before the Bill of Rights? So, like, maybe you should, like, stay in school, and, like, pay attention? So you can present, like, a cogent argument?

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

Rebecca, I'm honestly asking for your opinion here, since you seem to have a clue about Napster and copyright law.

When people were able to dub cassette tapes, no one said anything. Now you can record on CDs, and I don't think anyone has said anything about that (that I know of). What is the difference between people making copies of CDs or tapes they bought and giving them to friends, and Napster?

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I have no professional reason to have your understanding of copyright issues, but I love Napster and have a nice mp3 collection thanks to them. It seems to me that it would be clear copyright infringement if I were to burn and sell CDs w/ these files, or sell access to my collection, or play them at a club where I charged admission, or make money off of them in any way. However, I don't, and neither does any legitimate Napster user. So how is this different than making a tape off the radio for my own private enjoyment, or loaning such tapes to my friends for their own private enjoyment? We learn the music, we like the music, we buy tickets when the band comes to town.

From what I know about the workings of the music industry (I would refer you to the manifesto on http://www.auslandermusic.com), there's a lot of money being made for people other than artists in the present system, and free widespread dissemination of music increases the audience and gives rise to the possibility of a middle-class level of success for artists, instead of just struggling acts trying to get signed by a major label to stay in existance or outlandishly successful acts being shoved down our throats by the powers that be in the industry.

It's interesting. If I am wrong about my understanding about copyright infringements involving public use or money-making use of recordings not actually purchased, I would appreciate if you could explain how this works.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I think Rebecca is really Lars Ulrich.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

Rebecca wrote:
Look: I was promoting concerts when I was in high school, back when you were probably still stuffing mashed bananas up your nose.

I'm allergic to bananas.

I've worked for artist managers, concert promoters, indie labels, major labels, radio stations, industry trade groups, and I've edited and written for several music magazines.

Really? Which ones? Which labels? What articles have you written that we can all read?

The degree is not a big deal. I've been known to tell people I majored in underwater basket-weaving, and my diploma hangs over my toilet. I mentioned it to point out that I have a better understanding of copyright law than the average bear.

Oooooohhhhh. Average. Alrighty then, this excludes me.

But why? I've actually never seen Napster, because I use a Mac, but as far as I can tell, it just presents a list of songs, right? There's no context, no description, no information for the the active music fan who seeks out new music, new artists.

Um, Mac users can use Napster.
Right on the front page is a link to Discover, which has a mp3s of a featured artist and other new artists.

Since the briefs started flying, the Napster folks have changed their pitch from "Only big-name artists!" to "But we're just trying to help struggling artists, honest!"

Really? Where can I find documentation of this? And how do you know this?

This makes no sense. When did Web hosts become publicists?

No, sweetie, it does make sense. If you're in a band or an artist trying for a big break, you don't want to be stuck with Willie down the street's web-hosting services that are scant at best. You look for someone (or a web host)with a consistent server, *and* you make at least snippets of your music available for people to download so that they'll get an idea of your sound.

I know this because I am employed by several smaller known artists *from Nashville* (and NYC, and Austin, TX) to produce these types of sites for them.

Because I don't want to hog up a bunch of room in dear Gwen's forum (uh, like I'm doing right now) getting into pissing contests with people who don't care so much about music as they care about getting something for nothing.

I don't think that's exactly it. Seeing how you've never even seen how Napster operates, just going by assumptions, you can't possibly know the reasons why each person who uses Napster finds it viable.

As person with a *music business* degree you should understand that some music is no longer available, and sometimes someone gets a lucky break because Wally out in Tucson has an old 78 of it, made it into an mp3, and wants to share it with people who cannot physically buy it.

I find it amazingly hypocritical that Metallica says that they still encourage fans to tape live concerts and bootleg the recordings but to stop copying and distributing any recording on an album. Both of these actions violate Metallica's copyright (which they probably don't own anyway but more about that below). But the fact is that it is virtually impossible to record and distribute every live performance, so they know they are only losing hypothetical money on that and don't care.

Almost all musicians, however, who sign with a major music label actually relinquish their copyrights to the music label. Look at the CD liner notes on most albums. The copyright line will read "Copyright Greedy Corporate Music Label" or "Copyright Some Company Name" rather than "Copyright Dr. Dre" or "Copyright Lars Ulrich (other members of Metallica)." They do not own their work anymore, the corporation does. When their contract with the music label expires, if they go to another label they have no right to take their own work with them. If they release a "best of" CD on their new label, they have to ask permission from their old label to release their own songs again. The argument that the artist's copyright is being violated by Napster is actually completely untrue. The music label's copyright is being violated. Which is why in the suit against MP3 it was labels and the RIAA that sued, not individual artists. I have no idea why Metallica and Dr. Dre are suing Napster as artists unless they have extremely unique contracts that afford them the ability to retain copyright. If not, the label can work out a compensation deal with Napster and Metallica can't do anything about it.

More to the point, an act was passed that defined musical recordings for labels as "works for hire" which puts it in the same category as translating text. This defines musical artists as contract employees, not creators of original works, and gives them very little recourse to retain copyright over their own creations. Read the Courtney speech because she explains this very well and also how it happened with the majority of artists not even realizing it was going to happen until it was far too late. Frankly, I think Metallica and Dr. Dre should deal with the thieves they lie in bed with if they are really concerned about their copyright rights and issues of compensation.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I'm not going to interrupt you two, because you each know more about the issue than I do. But I can't resist throwing in this point: Every home-recorded mix CDR that I've been given has skipped in my car's CD player. I would rather have "real" CDs of the bands I loved and wanted as part of my permanent collection.

Oh, and CD art is important to me, too.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

As a former music industry person married to a musician, I have a couple of things to add. I'm quite anti-Napster for many reasons; the main one being that it seems to be helping to erode our sense that intellectual property is precious and valuable, and that artists and musicians deserve to be paid for their work just like anyone else.

I find it amazingly hypocritical that Metallica says that they still encourage fans to tape live concerts and bootleg the recordings but to stop copying and distributing any recording on an album.

I'm not guessing you get to vote on how Metallica, or any other recording artist(s) for that matter, runs his or her career. I'm no Metallica fan, but I believe they had to work very hard to get where they are, and I think they still work hard to STAY where they are!

Much has been written here about copyrights but I haven't read anything on royalties themselves, which is where musicians make a big part of their living. Two kinds of royalties, folks. The artists get paid when their songs are played on the radio, in a commercial, etc. This type of exposure can financially mean the world to artists. Sales of CDs and tapes also result in tiny bits of cash heading the artist's way. The amount is determined by many factors including copyright ownership, but also other aspects such as how many points the band has retained, how they decided to split the money amongst the players, whether they have met the recoupable mark set by the label, etc. It goes on and on. Bottom line is, it's best to be careful when making assumptions about how/how much artists are paid for their work. Each situation differs.

I have no idea why Metallica and Dr. Dre are suing Napster as artists unless they have extremely unique contracts that afford them the ability to retain copyright.

See answer above--reduced sales means reduced income to the artists, period. No matter WHO owns the copyright. And if we were talking about some unknown baby band here, reduced sales might jeopardize their chance to make a second record, period.

Frankly, I think Metallica and Dr. Dre should deal with the thieves they lie in bed with if they are really concerned about their copyright rights and issues of compensation.

I hear you saying that just because a mean record exec breaks into Lars' house in the dead of night and steals his silver candelabra, that it's okay for me or you to follow him in and steal his crystal punchbowl.

I do not get this argument -- that labels are the antichrist and do the worst damage, so it's okay for us to be little sons and daughters of antichrist and just hurt the artists a little bit.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I agree with most of what you have stated Heather.

You've misinterpreted some of my points, but I'm under the influence of several cold medications right now and have lost the ability to use logic.

At least this discussion is finally getting somewhere, though...

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I would still appreciate someone outlining the argument against Napster from a legal standpoint.

I hear what you're saying, but I tend to agree with Gwen about still wanting to own official copies, w/cover art, of artists I really like.

When I taped songs off the radio station in junior high, it didn't prevent me from going out and buying music. If anything, it just fostered greater awareness and interest in the artists' work on my part, resulting in more purchases of music and tickets to their shows. And anyone who's turned on a radio lately and heard the same Brittany Spears, Inc. crap on every station knows that very few artists get a chance to build a following through this medium.

I can see why Metallica, Dr. Dre, and other groups which have become mini-industries unto themsleves and have a chokehold on what music the consumer gets to really hear are pissed about Napster. But internet exposure IS the little guy's friend.

Do you know how much it actually costs to manufacter and distribute a CD? The reason they charge nearly $20 for them is because they (the labels)can. Or could. The labels (not the artists) have been ripping off the fans of their artists for too damn long.

If new technology has blurred the old definition of a copyright, that doesn't mean we put the technology back in the box.

I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but control of the entertainment industry in this country has been in the hands of too few and they've been selling us crap for too long, so whatever the outcome, it will be better than the old system for both fans and artists.

Yay supply and demand! Power to the people!

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

You would think artists would burn their own CDs and sell them from their own websites, wouldn't you? Or is that already happening?

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

Yes, Gwen!

Hepcat Records sells many albums from independent artists who have produced their own cds and whatnot. Not everything is good, not everything is horrible, but there are most definitely places where lesser known bands can sell their own stuff without needing to go through a corporate label.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I don't want to condone Napster, but there is a Mac version, released only today. And yes, as with most downloadable Internet software these days, especially for the Mac platform, it's a beta. Don't even get me started on that. :P

http://www.napster.com/mac/d ownload/

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

To Nicole: When people were able to dub cassette tapes, no one said anythingB.

Actually, they did. Old geezer musicheads like me remember the BHome taping is killing musicB campaign, with a cassette subbing for the skull in a Jolly Roger.

Under the Home Audio Recording Act, you can make copies for yourself, as long as you do it using standard home equipment. The manufacturers of those devices and the blank media used in them pay royalties to a fund that is then distributed to copyright holders.

If you give such a tape or CD to a friend, though, youBre on thin ice, according to the letter of the law, but itBs not too big of a deal.

But the difference between that and Napster is magnitudeBnumbers, baby. YouBre offering up copies of work to all the thousands of people whoBve downloaded Napster (in theory, anyway).

To fruitbat: I love Napster and have a nice mp3 collection thanks to themB.

And thanks to the songwriters, musicians, engineers, producers who actually made the music, not to mention the distribution, merchandising, and promotion people who got it out on the market for someone to buy.

It seems to me that it would be clear copyright infringement if I were to burn and sell CDs w/ these files...

It's the copying that's the infringement. Whether you sell it or not is another matter.

I skimmed the auslander manifesto, and they're right about the industry, but if the artists are getting screwed, aren't you just piling on when you use Napster?

And I find the argument that musicians should give away their music to get butts in seats distasteful. Musicians spend years studying their instruments, honing their craft, living through the heartaches they write songs about. Music is the singular expression of someone's heart & soul (at least the good stuff is). They should give that away so they can hawk more T-shirts?

...there's a lot of money being made for people other than artists in the present system...

And what of it? Should Keli not be paid for making artists' Web sites?

That's like saying only the people who work on the line in the factory should get paid when you buy corn flakes. What about the people who ship it, who design the boxes, the guy who sweeps up the factory? Should they not get paid for their efforts?

To Keli: (sigh) Once again, I mentioned my background because so many of the people who expound on this topic are ill-informed about the music industry. But if you insist, I worked for Ricky Skaggs' manager, Sound 70 concerts, Praxis Records, Warner Bros. Records, WRLT, the Nashville Music Association, and I was the editor of The Metro and Bone, and I've written for The Tennessean, New Country and the Nashville Scene, among others. Most of my writing has been for print, but you can read some of it here< /a>, here or here.

Napster, the program, is for Windows. I don't care that there are Mac alternatives, because I think the whole idea is wrong.

As to Napster's pitch, here's what Judge Marilyn Patel said in her opinion when she granted an injunction against Napster: "Defendant promoted the availability of songs by major stars as, and I quote from some of their papers, 'opposed to having to go through page after page of unknown artists.'

Suddenly, they found those unknown artists and would seek to use them as a basis for protection against infringement of the well-known artist whose music they were making available or providing access to."

...you can't possibly know the reasons why each person who uses Napster finds it viable....

I don't care about Napster users, I care about the artists whose rights are being infringed and whose livelihood is being threatened.

The argument that the artist's copyright is being violated by Napster is actually completely untrue.

See, this is the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. You are wrong. Any recording carries two copyrights: One for the song, and one for that particular recorded version of the song. The record company owns the latter, but the majority of artists who write their own material have their own publishing companies, which enables them to collect both songwriting and publishing royalties. They hold the copyrights to their songs.

As to the work-for-hire legislation, it is now being repealed, so any discussion of it is purely academic. I doubt any artists will be affected.

To fruitbat: If you want to get really hardcore with the legal scholarship, thereBs a very interesting discussion of copyright and new media here.

But I'll just give you the basics: When you buy a CD, all you are buying is that one copy of the Work. The right to make copies, and to distribute copies to the public, belongs to the copyright holder. Unless you are granted an express license by the copyright holder, you do not have the right to make copies or distribute that work (except under the exceptions provided by the Home Audio Recording Act, the Fair Use doctrine, etc.)

... have a chokehold on what music the consumer gets to really hear...they've been selling us crap for too long...

I see this argument all the time, and it doesn't hold water. You're assuming a passivity that doesn't exist. The music industry can no more force you to listen to Metallica or Britney Spears than the toothpaste industry can force you to brush your teeth with Crest.

If you're willing to put out a little effort, there's always good music to be found, no matter what kind of crap is at the top of the charts.

And the music industry has had its share of New Cokes, like Garth Brooks' Chris Gaines fiasco. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think they shipped 7 million units, but only sold 2 million (if that many). My friend and I had a running joke at the time where we'd come up with ways to use all those returned CDs, like making a retractable roof for the football stadium.

If millions of people weren't buying Britney Spears albums, she wouldn't be all over the place. So supply and demand are doing their thing even as we speak.

Do you know how much it actually costs to manufacter and distribute a CD?

Do you know how much it actually costs to record a CD? It's not just a piece of plastic you're paying for.

But internet exposure IS the little guy's friend.

You're right. But doesn't the artist have the right to decide when, where and how he's exposed?

Power to the people!

Some of the people is artists, m'dear, and they would like the power to buy food that is not ramen noodles.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

Oops! Sorry about all those B's. I wrote that in a text editor, and I accidentally hit the curly-quote button.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

And another thing: If new technology has blurred the old definition of a copyright...

fruitbat, new technology does not blur the definition of copyright any more than the old technology of the five-finger discount blurs the definition of property rights.

All the new technology has done is make infringement a heck of a lot easier.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2000

I have never used Napster. I admit that freely and right up front. But I have paid close attention to the articles debating it and the lawsuit news, etc., because I've always been fascinated by creators and their rights. It couldn't be any more clear-cut that the whole Napster-MP3-copying universe is actively engaged in rampant copyright infringement. The whole argument is between those people who are defending the rights of individuals who create for a living and those people who consume and thrill to get something for nothing.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Paul, you are right on. Any chance you'll be running for public office anytime soon? You got my vote.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Mine, too, Paul!

fruitbat, for a different take on the Internet and the independent musician, you might want to look here. The link may be a little funky, so if it doesn't work, go to www.insound.com and click "machine" on the menu. I'm sure the auslander guys have their hearts in the right place, but Jenny Toomey and Kristin Thomson of Insound and the Future of Music Coalition ran a successful indie label, Simple Machines, for eight years, and they're very concerned with the nuts and bolts of getting musicians paid. They also have a very detailed, beautifully written explanation of the whole royalty system. It's more user-friendly than the legal stuff I referred you to earlier.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Wow, thanks ladies! The assurance of at least two votes makes me want to run for office, just for the fun of it. :-)

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

I would totally use it if I wasn't behind a firewall. But only for music by artists who are dead, so I'm not ripping them off, just their estates. Or something.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Napster is dead, but unfortunately there's a new site that's primarily doing the same thing. I'm not going to post it, but you can go to zdnet and search and you'll find it. I make a very good living as a writer and publisher and have for a long time (altho you'd scarcely know it by my posts) and I'm sensitive to copyright as a result. I'm in print media with currently only a very small web presence, (a bigger, splashier website is being built) but you know, I've always assumed that, if it was on the www, it was going to be ripped off. Isn't that what the web is all about? A wild, free-for- all exchange with no strings attached? I may be showing my age here, but I personally do not want any governemnt regulation of the web whatsoever. They fuck up everything they touch. If an artist doesn't want his or her material copied from the web, maybe they should take steps to keep it off. (Like with Napster) The web will never be a substitute for other forms of communication that ARE strictly protected and I really don't think it should be. Besides, if artists want to use the web as a marketing device, they can set up a website and do so and maybe throw in short snippets for free as bait. I'm still feeling my way on this one, but I know that, with anything I put on the web, that it's wide open. If someone ELSE was copying my stuff and putting it on the web, I may or may not put a stop to it. depending on the individual situation. The web is a world-wide liberating device that truly empowers the people and I would hate to see it go the route of television. You only see what the gummit wants you to see and even supposedly hard-hitting investigative shows like 60 Minutes are nothing but pathetic whores for big business via advertising bucks.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

OK. Don't get me wrong. Do I agree with Napster? No. Do I believe that it is copyright infringement? Yes.

That being said, I have Napster, I love Napster, and though maybe it should be shut down, I will be quite saddened by its demise.

I understand everyone's position on this. Rebecca and Lars Ulrich are a tad...worked up over the issue. I sense a "we should be" comment. No. This is not your fight. This is a fight for record companies. You know. The copyright holders? Lars, how did you get exclusive rights? OK, fine. Carry your picket sign around all you want. Rebecca, sweetie? Calm down. You are pissing me off. Don't waltz in, insult people, and take some moral high ground--backed by your oft-mentioned credentials--and think that even if Keli and Jill are more good natured than I, you are free to prattle on incessantly about your opinions. You have met no real opisition, don't make me be it. I'm trying very hard to not be sarcastic, by the way. I would hate to revert to something like your "Like, Jill?" routine. Very clever. I love making fun of people, too. Especially when I so obviously think (ahem, sorry)KNOW I'm right and decide to fill up glorious amounts of space with my opinions. For opinions they are, Becky dear. Opinions. I don't care how many degrees you have in your bathroom.

That also being said, if you do have Napster, don't be ashamed. So it's a guilty pleasure. Feel guilty. Enjoy your guilt, like a bar of Godiva chocolate or some dirty sexual what have you. Live and let live, no need to get worked up about it. And if you do have Napster, you can get every rendition of "Danny Boy" ever recorded. Why not try the St. Olaf Choir version today?

This was, for me, typically disjointed. No need to poke fun. I'm just disorganized that way.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Oh, and no spelling jabs either. That's just stooping. ;)

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Has it been proven that album sales are down because of Napster? I've heard the opposite, that sales have actually increased because of it. I'm not trying to start a pissing contest, just curious.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

ummm dont get mad but what is nap ster? can some one give me the adress?

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Shelly, according to a SoundScan study, while CD sales are up overall by about 20%, they're down 4% around college campuses, which is presumably where most of the Napster action is taking place. When you consider that college students have historically been among the most active music purchasers, it starts to look kinda scary.

But some point out that SoundScan doesn't measure online sales, which could skew the numbers somewhat.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

blahblahblah snipe snark snipey snotty blah blah self-righteous legalese blah blah self-important blah blah napstercakes.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

Jill, I do owe you an apology. I was way out of line the other night. I was still in snarly mode after defending myself against Keli's attack, which is an explanation, but not an excuse.

I'm very sorry.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

You have all missed the real point in this argument.

What is important is that Napster itself does not hold any mp3s at all. The mp3 transfers occur between the individual users, all Napster.com serves as is a huge database. When you log on, your track list is uploaded to it, but your songs stay on your computer until someone links to it. So it is not guilty of

And anyway, no one can shut down napster now - it has branched out too much. They may shut napster.com, but they won't close all the opennap, djnap etc. servers out there.

Just sit back, skin up, and download some tunes. I can't afford fucking CD s anyway - horray for Napster!!!!!

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

I think the audience here is aware of the way Napster functions, hon. But thanks for sharing. The fact that the mp3s shared aren't actually housed on napster servers doesn't mean that they're not the "enabler", in therapist-speak, and doesn't deflect the arguments surrounding napster in the least. It also doesn't mean napster can't be taken out like a direct hit to the reactor core of the Death Star, and despite the multitude of file-sharing alternatives, they need to be extremely popular (ie many many files shared) in order to work well.

I love Napster. Heh. Not to re-open this can of worms or anything.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000