Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Arts & Entertainment

Music Review
Sharps & Flats
On "The Covers Record," Cat Power strips "Satisfaction" of Jagger's swagger and manages to velvet over the VU.
By Dave McCoy
[03/24/00]

Movie Review
"Romeo Must Die"
In this canny and ingeniously crafted action thriller, Jet Li glows with a quiet, unquantifiable something -- and he kicks butt.
By Andrew O'Hehir
[03/24/00]

Movies
A chat with Mr. Oscar
Damien Bona talks about "American Beauty" and Warren Beatty, "Titanic" and Roberto Benigni and more than 70 years of the academy's hits and misses.
By Bill Wyman
[03/24/00]

Music Review
Sharps & Flats
Patti Smith explodes on "Gung Ho," the best record since she returned to rock. Joni Mitchell, meanwhile, collapses under jazz pretense and a ravaged voice.
By Seth Mnookin
[03/23/00]

Column
The disc master
A conversation with the Criterion Collection's Peter Becker, the man who created the ultimate DVD versions of "Grand Illusion," "This Is Spinal Tap" -- and "Armageddon."
By Michael Sragow
[03/23/00]

Complete archives for Arts & Entertainment

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

"'We can make a new model' -- yeah, right," says the singer. "It's laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you're Alanis Morissette or Dave Mathews, you're not making money on the road. It's all I can do to break even on tour. And the only reason to tour is to promote the sale of my CD."

But, the new technology argument goes, if so many more people are downloading artists' songs for free, that means more fans will be exposed and attend more shows, where the money will flow to performers' pockets. "But will they come and pay to see your show, or will they want that for free, too?" wonders Nashville singer Mandy Barnett. "It's a vicious cycle." And Hersh, a mother of three, wonders, "What about the artist who doesn't want to spend 200 days a year away from home?"

Others scratch their heads when they hear that Napster's defenders -- like the Students Against University Censorship, who protest campus restrictions on Napster use -- are adopting a free-speech argument. "It's pure fantasy," says Frank Breeden, president of the Gospel Music Association. "The First Amendment is not a right to do whatever you want in life. You don't have a right to come into my house and steal whatever you want."

Not everyone in the artistic community holds such strident, anti-Napster views, though. "I believe in the technology," says rapper Chuck D, whose Rapstation.com site may soon strike a deal with Napster. "It's a fantastic way to build a minor league system of artists. It's Napster on one side and major labels on the other. Pick your side."

"The genie's out of the bottle, now artists need to let evolution happen," adds Alan Kovac, president of Left Bank Management, which represents the Bee Gees, Motley Crüe and others. "I want to be on the side of innovation." And Jim Guerinot, owner of Time Bomb Records and manager for the Offspring and No Doubt, doesn't think RIAA lawyers should strangle Napster in the cradle.

"It's fascinating technology that's captured youthful consumers. I think there's something there that's worth talking about. If there is a way to secure the e-mails [of users], to create an online digital fan club, that could be cool." That said, Guerinot warns that Napster's current approach is a non-starter. "If their model is static, if the music is free and they're only using it for an IPO, well fuck them, clearly. Their business now is not something that's equitable or workable in the long term. It's like the ball that gets stuck on the pinball bumper and rings up lots of points. It's clever and exciting at first, but it doesn't really go anywhere."

"If Napster had our best interest in mind then they would ask our artists," says Bernstein at Q Prime. "Nobody at Napster has ever called to ask our permission. Artists say, 'Ask me. Explain what it is and ask if I want to participate.' But Napster doesn't give them at opportunity. They're basically saying fuck the workers. Let them work their asses off and we'll give it away for nothing."

Napster partisans maintain that, since the software simply helps users find files on one another's computers, Napster's role is like that of an Internet service provider -- it's merely a conduit for the users, and any illegal behavior is the responsibility of those users. (Consumers are going to do what consumers are going to do," shrugged one Napster VP in the New York Times.)

As for the defense Napster's Richardson recently gave a reporter, that "Just because you are the company that makes the crowbars doesn't mean that you're responsible when one is used to break into a house," some artists simply shake their heads. "'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.' Sound familiar?" asks Hersh. "Someone has to take responsibility if a large group of people is being hurt due in part to your innovation. It may not be Napster's problem, but it would be nice for Napster to acknowledge the problem and contribute to the discussion regarding the possible solutions."

Bernstein says that Napster is "absolutely" illegal and scoffs at the company's defense: "The bigger the lie the more you get away with, I suppose. There's no question Napster's going to lose in court. The only question is how much money in damages they'll have to pay. I hope it's enormous because then the big money investors, which Napster needs, will walk away."

Sting's manager, Miles Copeland, agrees: "Investors are going to realize it's a theft business and ask, how does it make money? It doesn't." And if Napster does fail as a commercial enterprise, managers doubt copycats would rush in.

That may not be the end of Napster-like MP3 trading online, however: Already there's a free, open-source Son of Napster named Gnutella, that free-software hackers could easily make widely available across the Net. Unlike Napster, Gnutella doesn't rely on a centralized directory for connecting users -- so there's no business to invest in and no one to sue, except the music fans who might use it.

Regardless of Napster's fate, the question that will continue to loom large is, who owns the music, and does copyright mean anything online? "Napster's the tip of the iceberg," says Stone. "The broader question is intellectual property on the Internet. Intellectual property should be valued and protected or we'll all go down. And not just music either. Why would anybody sit down and write a novel if it's going to be pirated for free the first day it's released? If nobody values intellectual property, then we'll all be in the insurance business."

"No matter what you do for a living you should get paid for your work," says Atlantic recording artist Bif Naked, "whether you're washing dishes or recording songs."

That certainly runs counter to the notion being embraced online that music, copyrighted or not, should be free to whoever has the tools to take it. "It's all very well to say music should be free, but the reality is if you don't pay the artists, the road crew, the musicians, the recording studio, if there's no money in music, there's not going to be much music left," says Copeland. "How many people would be doctors if they had to work for free? What if we said, 'Hey, the airlines are ripping us off and we don't want to pay for tickets, we'll just steal them.' Guess how long the airlines would last? If it becomes free, then it becomes extinct."

Ask rock veteran and former Blondie leader singer Debbie Harry what she thinks of Napster and, like Aimee Mann, she gives a very simple answer: "Artists should be compensated for the work that they do." It's a refrain you may now be hearing more often.
salon.com | March 24, 2000

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

  Get a printer-friendly version

  E-mail a friend about this article

  Backflip this article to find it again

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon