Search Salon

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

View From the Top

Full list of profiles

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

Recently in Salon Technology

Is it time to buy Microsoft?
Wall Street has pummeled Bill Gates' stock price -- and the reasons are more psychological than financial.
By Steve Bodow
[04/28/00]

After the fall
Executives at Women.com, VA Linux, Productopia and others forge a path into post-market correction Silicon Valley.
By Janelle Brown, Damien Cave and Andrew Leonard
[04/28/00]

Sissyfighter
Meet Eric Zimmerman, the brains behind the Net's nastiest little game.
By Russ Spencer
[04/27/00]

Books
Zen and the art of start-ups
A Silicon Valley rebel gets spiritual about making money in "The Monk and the Riddle."
By Katharine Mieszkowski
[04/26/00]

Dot-com party madness
Forget about return on investment. Bay Area tech companies spend $1 million a month on food, drink and music in exchange for "buzz."
By Damien Cave
[04/25/00]

Complete archives for Technology

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

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

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

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes. Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

Some have speculated that in the future, music will be given away free, and artists will make money elsewhere. Do you think this is possible?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists. Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

No one is arguing Chicken Little here; what we are saying is that if that geometric progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour. You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work. And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway. Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

And what about Limp Bizkit, which has stepped out of line from other members of the record industry?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

Is there anything Napster could do to tweak its software that would satisfy the record industry's concerns?

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet. I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Shouldn't the record industry be helping them create those scenarios, though, rather than expecting the technology companies to come up with all the ideas themselves?

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

As you battle MP3.com in court, is it your hope that this company will be put out of business by this lawsuit? The monetary damages for copyright violations [up to $150,000 per song] could easily bankrupt the company.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

As the record industry's most visible spokesperson, is it frustrating that online fan sentiment has turned to be anti-record label? Or that people like Michael Robertson, CEO of MP3.com, constantly deride the RIAA?

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself. But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company. When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.
salon.com | May 1, 2000

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

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

  Get a printer-friendly version

  E-mail a friend about this article

  Backflip this article to find it again

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

Search Salon