Tuesday, May 16, 2000
Hiya. This is your editor, LN, here. Our writer, Michael Luke, originally wrote this article for NSD 6.17:
If you're a Napster user, it must be hard to like Metallica these days, especially if your name ranks among those Metallica dumped on Napster's doorstep (see NSD 6.16). Napster has blocked all 317,377 accused from using Napster's filesharing functions. Inevitably, some innocents have been caught in the crossfire, but don't worry. Anyone affected can issue a counter notice - which requires personal identification - and if Metallica doesn't sue you within ten days, Napster will restore your privileges. Hmmm. Apparently, you can beat Napster's block, but Napster will pull the messages of anyone who talks about it on the Napster bulletin boards and warn them not to try it again. CNet has all the messy details, and Napster's got a clear, calm explanation of what they're doing and why.
He added the following commentary, which I (LN) cut from NSD:
What followed was this email exchange between myself (LN), our other editor/publisher Arthur and Michael, which reflects our own brief debate on the subject.
Editor Laurie Nyveen wrote:
I don't normally cut out editorial commentary, and I even when I do I
rarely comment on it, but in this case I will.
I can't agree with Michael's sentiment. Oh, I do agree that the Net
presents many new marketing opportunities and strategies, as well as
creativity. But I don't take issue with an artist's right to protect
their work.
Sure, Metallica hasn't embraced Netrepeneurialism. That might be
misguided, but it's their choice. And as such, it is their right -
legal and moral - not to have their music pirated and passed
around.
Editor/Publisher Arthur replied with this email:
In a sense I think you both are right - and I'm not just saying this to
be wussy and avoid taking a stand. Sure, Metallica can choose to
control its music, and they do have the legal right to do this. Maybe
even a moral right to do this. But Michael is correct in that the way
they're going about it leads to a self-defeating consequences. How many
fans have they lost because of this? Sure, if they want to
self-immolate, fine, let them, but that does not mean that we should
allow them to take down a revolutionary change in information
distribution when they do so.
As Michael notes ultimately there is indeed a new economic reality in
place - people can copy and trade any digital content without any
regard to the law and without the knowledge of any enforcement body.
It's as if you tried to regulate face-to-face speech - it can't be done
effectively. The artists who will thrive in this new environment will
have to find creative ways of using their intellectual property which
don't rely on the manifestly ineffective legal scaffolds of today.
Artists need audiences and trying to protect intellectual property the
old-fashioned way, with copyright laws, only alienates them these
days.
Why not try some radical concepts? For example, give away the work for
free and make money in ancilliary ways. For a band: release the music
online and make money from live concerts. There's great precedent in
the Greatful Dead who allowed fans to tape their concerts and thrived
in an era of draconian restrictions on the recording of live music by
other bands. I suspect any decent band which sold CDs at cost would be
wildy popular and could get away with charging a lot more for their
live concerts. Similar analogies can be made for writers.
I honestly think that new models of intellectual property economics
will open up large income streams which will be much more lucrative to
the artists than the cash generated under current intellectual property
laws. As soon as people wise up to the fact that doing things the
old-fashioned way hits their pocketbook by losing fans, they'll change.
The challenge is to break out of the box of old-style thinking. You can
still control your intellectual property, but in different ways then in
the past. Revolutions are painful.
Let me suggest Laurie and Michael that we take this discussion public by
putting it in the next Letters to the Editor. No harm letting our readers
know there's a diversity of views here. In the interest of brevity let's
cut the comments from the item, but put them in Letters noting how they
got there along with Laurie's and mine comments. Besides, that way Michael
can't complain that we're censoring his opinions :)
Incidentally Michael, I like "the same economy, made smaller by such
tactics" sentence. Nice turn of phrase.
LN here again. CNet posted a nice serial analysis of new economy business models while we were talking about this. It's worth a look. Michael also replied to my note:
Writer Michael Luke wrote:
Re your decision to cut the editorializing - bottom line is, thanks for
letting me know and don't worry about it. You set the tone for the
magazine and I respect that, so I'm not uncomfortable with having my
opinions cut out - I can always foist them on my kids, fat lot of good
though it does me!
I'm a great believer in intellectual property rights, also, but I'm not
sure that that is a simply question of good guys and bad guys, or that
right is really on the side of the copyright holders in this case,
which is why I came out with the words I did. I believe in strong
patent laws and reasonable copyright laws but I also believe in the
ideals that these "rights" are not absolute, that is they are supposed
to set a balance between the public good and the private good. Both
forms of protection are grounded in this kind of approach - that
creative and inventive people need some limited form of protection so
that society can fully benefit from their work. The concept of fair use
in copyright seems to flow from this kind of notion.
The antideluvian approach of the music business compared with what
users clearly want (opened up by the options the Web has permitted) is
what has set us up for this fight. And I guess I'm tired of seeing
judges always seeming to forget the duality of the bargain here. Does
Metallica have the right to do what it is doing? Yep. Do users have
good reason for grumbling? You betcha! I think we all have to care
about how this whole thing comes out and my feeling - and it's just a
finger held up to the wind, I admit - is that the public good is losing
these fights, and that's worrying.
That's about it. Not as interesting as sausage-making or politics, I'm afraid. - LN
Very few if any copyrights of any kind were broken in the making of this page.
Publisher: Arthur Bebak
Editor: Lawrence Nyveen
Address your letters to
editor@netsurf.com.
Letters and signatures edited for clarity and brevity.