My thoughts on Napster...

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 14 Mar 2001 6:02 pm

Hi David P. -- thanks for the info and for the links.

I would highly recommend to anyone interested in this thread to go click on the "soundchoice" link that David posted above. Once you get there, click on the tiny "homepage" link in the lower left-hand corner. Then, click on the "F.A.Q" link under the heading "INFO" on the left side of the page. Then go down to the third heading which is "Karoake Licensing Duplication FAQ's" and click on that. On that page you will find a bunch of questions with answers that are relavent to this topic, and which are quite enlightening regarding both copyright law and royalty licensing payments.

As to Courtney Love, I agree with you, David. She sounds pretty clueless.

As to Martin Sexon, if he owns the rights to his songs, he can choose not to enforce copyright infringement, which means that he can allow people to freely tape his concerts without any fear of penalty. That's his choice of course since the songs are presumably his property.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 14 Mar 2001 6:18 pm

First off, let me reiterate...I do not use or condone "Napster". But John misses my point, and some others do too. Would you HONESTLY spend HOURS downloading songs if they weren't so expensive to buy?

I like John Steele!

He argues with me. His arguments aren't well thought out, but he's there, nevertheless. Now here's what John said...

Sure, your contention makes sense for the Brittany Spears and other T&A acts who sell hundreds of thousands. It makes no sense to the rest of the industry (which are the majority).

John...what planet are you on? The majority IS the people who sell hundreds of thousands! I don't know where you shop for CD's (maybe only here on the FORUM?) but everywhere I go the MAJORITY of stuff for sale is major-label, major-artist. This is stuff produced in runs of no less than 25,000 and usually 100,000 or more. I don't go into a Circuit City, a Walmart, a BestBuy, a Target, or The Wall, and find a lot of "indie" stuff that someone (like the people here on the FORUM) produced.

John's next words...

With small-market cd's like some of us produce costing $7000-$10,000 to create, and a potential market of way less than 1000 sales, your figures just don't add up. (As many others have pointed out).

John, those are your figures, not mine. First of all, I would like to hear from all the FORUMITES who have spent that much producing a CD, and then expected to make money on selling a few hundred. That's not "new math"...that's lack of business sense, plain and simple. About his CD, Bobby Lee said he "never expected to make any money, it was a labor of love". At least he's a realist!

Here's another one of John's statements...

Last year, the musician's union lobbied to have a tax placed on blank tapes because of the royalty abuse. It has been put in place. They cared then.

John...has someone been asleep? Cassette tapes have been around for over 25 years! And yet, in your own words...they didn't even do anything about them until last year!!! Why did it take them over 25 years to do anything about cassettes, and less than a year to shut down Napster? Don't you (and just about everyone else in the world) see a difference there?

In closing...yes John, if the good Lord permits me to go on living, I will put out my own CD, hopefully this year. And you can bet I won't charge $15-$18 for it either...even if I don't make any money on it. Because $15-$18 is just too much. Not that I'm cheap, either. Ask b0b! I've already given him a cash contribution, and I'll bet that I've bought more CD's from him than 99.9% of the FORUM members! How about you, John? I know you don't mind spending any amount for a CD...right?

How does your own CD buying habits "rate" here on the FORUM?

p.s. Yes, John...I know all about "Something for nothing" I also know "Talk is cheap."

Have a nice day!

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 14 Mar 2001 6:30 pm

I remember some guy from ASCAP wanting to collect money from the musicians for playing the song.

Actually, the music provider is the one who pays the royalties, not the musicians. In any resonably-sized venue, ASCAP actively collects royalties. When Jim Baron put on a steel show in Sacramento a while back, he had to pay royalties on the songs played. It's part of the operating expense of putting on a show.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 14 Mar 2001 6:40 pm

I think you have to keep in mind that John Steele is Canadian, Donny. The laws and the dollar amounts are a little different up there.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 14 Mar 2001 6:49 pm

Yes, you're right, Bobby. If the musicians are hired to do a job, they aren't actually liable because they are only contractors of the venue which hired them. If the musicians "play for the door" and collect their own money, I'm not sure who's liable, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the musicians who are liable in that case.

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 15 Mar 2001 2:38 am

I don't knwo haw that all worked. All I know is that we couldn't play the song.

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 15 Mar 2001 3:12 am

About Music copyrights: Mike, in most live music clubs in most middle to large cities in the US, there are agents for ASCAP and BMI who get money from the club owners to pay for the songs performed at the club. This money goes to songwriters (or at least some of it does). Now if musicians only got residuals.....

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 15 Mar 2001 3:22 am

Frank said

Right, b0b! Using your equation, Left = Wrong!

Typical fuzzy headed Republican thinking (hey Frank, are you doing Shrub's budget?)

What b0b said was that it's not right versus left, it's right versus wrong.

Using a bastardized logic equation, this could be written as something:

left XOR right = FALSE
wrong XOR right = TRUE

If you follow this, you would find that left != wrong.

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com [This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 15 March 2001 at 03:23 AM.]

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 15 Mar 2001 6:50 am

Like water seeking it's own level,so do the CD sales. If the buying public is unwillin' to pay the asking price of the CD,the price WILL be lowered till it reaches a point the consumer will pay.

The market determinds the selling price.
I will not buy the hardback version of many books I see marked at $25.00 or more. I wait till it is in paperback at around $6.00. The same for CD's. $16.00 to $25.00 vs $4.95 to $7.00 in discount stores. All too often, one can find the CD/book/tape at a fraction of the new price. Patience is often the only thing required to find ANY material at a cost that is acceptible to you,the buying public. Too bad the Recording and Music companys haven't noticed this long before now and put a reasonable price on the product in the beginning instead of attempting to bankrupt the consumer. This same argument can be applied to the clothing business and other markets as well. (Do auto sells come to mind here ??)

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Mar 2001 7:16 am

Bill, I agree with you that some items seem to be expensive -- like cars and CD's etc. But, by your own theory, the price of an item will seek it's own level based on supply and demand. That is, taking into account the supply (the willingness of somebody to make the stuff) and the demand (the willingness of the market to purchase the stuff), then the price of the stuff will seek a natural level -- that's basically what you said, and I happen to agree with you whole-heartedly.

So, based on that, there are obviously many people who are willing to fork out the dough to buy the cars, the CD's the hardcover books, and whatever else is out there, and they're willing to pay the prices that are being asked for. If this were not true, then the prices would fall. But I don't see many prices falling, except for overvalued stocks. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 15 March 2001 at 07:18 AM.]

Bill Rowlett · Post by **Bill Rowlett** » 15 Mar 2001 9:08 am

My 15 year old daughter tells me that kids would never buy the stuff that they download from Napster anyway. She says that they shotgun download titles that seem cool or just get old groups like Chicago and Led Zeppelin that they have heard about. What does happen is that when they hear something that they like, then they either try to see the artist live or buy a real CD for the coolness. She doesn't see what the uproar is because she says that without Napster, the kids would never hear most of the songs and certainly would never ever buy them. Generally, the downloaded songs get listened to once or twice and then written over. If the songs are really good or "cool" then the kids want a real CD for the cover and liner. Her friends have gotten real selective, and won't buy anything that they haven't previewed via MP3 downloads. She says that kids will never go back to the old way of buying CD's and that they boycott groups that complain.

Judging from her sudden interest in seeing many older musicians live, it would seem that most artists would be advised to use Napster to broaden their name recognition and make their money from personal appearances.

John Steele · Post by **John Steele** » 15 Mar 2001 9:09 am

Donny, that's the beauty of capitalism.
You can produce a CD, and pay people $10 a piece to buy it if you want. And nobody has any right to tell you that you can't.
BTW, I'll take two

I'm not sure if I understand the question about buying habits, but I can tell you that I've seldom if ever paid less than $18 for a CD... and my rack has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 right now. That's here in Canada.
I can tell you the last two recordings that I was involved with as more than a session guy, the approximate production costs were: #1 $8,500 and #2 $5,700 (both fairly reasonable) The discs sold for $20 apiece, and the sales barely covered expenses. Also a labour of love. That doesn't mean anyone intends on going broke doing it.
As for the majority, I'm not talking sales majority. I'm saying, for every Brittany Spears-type artist, there are 20 John Hughey's, John Steele's, and Donny Hinsons.
If avoiding "bad business sense" really played a role in any of this, none of us would be here.
And, yeah, I like arguing with you too, Donny

-John
"No lady, we won't haul your ashes for 50 cents... that's bad business!"- Fats Waller
-John

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 15 Mar 2001 9:29 am

Of course, Bobby. You're right about the currency exchange rates. But isn't $7,000 in Canadian money worth $7,000 in Canada? As far as the laws are concerned, my point is that all this furor with Napster (Supreme Court decisions, front-page headlines, and big exposure on the six o'clock news) never existed when cassettes came out. It's natural that some people will always find a way to "bypass the system". But, they have a lot of added incentive when prices are high, that's just common sense. Still, a lot of people want to argue with me about that point.

My whole contention is that major label/artist CD's are too expensive! I understand that an independent cannot compete with a major artist/label on a cost-per-copy basis. But apparently, few people are upset with the prices of major artist/label CD's being as high (or higher!) than most of the independent stuff! I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Bobby, if I had a real problem with prices of most of the independent label stuff, I wouldn't have bought so many from you! But, if you, or John, or anyone else thinks that all this furror over Napster is on account of the "little guy", you're sadly mistaken. This much attention is only generated when big stars, and big companies, stand to lose millions of dollars.

The industry, as a whole, could care less about us "little guys".

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 15 Mar 2001 11:34 am

Bill, there's a solution for your daughter and her friends to preview music - streaming audio. The music is played directly from a web server, where it is sanctioned and blessed by the folks who own the music. This is the legal way to preview music.

Real Audio's RAM technology uses this model. It never caught on because nobody was willing to license the technology into portable players. MP3 requires no technology license fee.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 15 Mar 2001 11:44 am

Donny, most of us here don't care much about the price of big hit CDs. Only about 5% of my collection falls into that category. I'm sort of glad that they keep their price high, because it allows us to maybe make a little money at those same price points. If I had to sell CDs for $10 retail, I'd shut down the Forum store. I couldn't make enough money to cover my expenses.

The CDs that I get from a big distributor are sold to me at 25% off of the retail price. That is the standard discount for a small record store. I'm sure that Costco, Best Buy and WalMart get a better discount.

Donny, I know that you're not complaining about Forum catalog prices. I'm just saying that without the high prices of mass-market CDs, we wouldn't be able to sell our small run products competitively.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (E9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6)

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 15 Mar 2001 2:34 pm

After reading Bill Rowlett's post, I am almost persuaded to believe that there is no harm in Napster...

I just wonder how many steelers out there would steal steel music produced by their favorite steeler instead of buying the stolen steel music from the steeler?

In other words, how many people would just download instead of buy the music in this small niche market?

Again, it is a matter of conscience.

Bob Shilling · Post by **Bob Shilling** » 15 Mar 2001 4:03 pm

I thouhgt that most clubs paid a fee to either ASCAP or BMI, who then distributed royalties to songwriters. I also thought that the royalties weren't actually placed on what songs the band plays, but rather on playlists gleaned from radio airtime, jukeboxes, etc. However, that's just what a club owner told me 20 years ago, and i never really followed up on it.

As to the price of CDs, it seems everybody is very clear on what price is appropriate for small production runs (like most of our members here) but not everyone agrees on what is appropriate for the big company runs. As Bill Crook says, the market determines the price. If 15 bucks is too much, don't buy it (and that does NOT mean go steal it

). BUT, I doubt that Berkeley is so unusual as to be the only place with used CD stores. I rarely pay more than $10 for a CD, because I just get a used one if it's available (and they usually are.)

The used CD market was in fact a HUGE bone of contention with the music industry, and probably still is -- we just don't hear about it anymore. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that when you buy the CD that's all you buy. Well, the record companies seemed to think that you din't even have the right to resell it if you didn't want it anymore. I believe they were "blackballing" record stores that sold used CD's. The "problem" of course being that there is no degradation of quality in a used CD as there was on vinyl.

I've bought CD's form b0b, and I'm happy to pay the higher price because I understand the problems of scale, and also because we're all friends here, but if y'all think CD prices are too high, then don't buy them or buy used ones -- just don't rip off the music. (Whether or not the music industry sucks is irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right.)

BTW, one of our fellow forumites is associated with the SF branch of Amoeba, Berkeley's biggest used CD store. And there ARE steel guitar CDs in that store. (No used ones though

)

------------------
Bob Shilling, Berkeley, CA--MSA S10

[This message was edited by Bob Shilling on 15 March 2001 at 04:05 PM.]

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 15 Mar 2001 8:55 pm

The used CD market was in fact a HUGE bone of contention with the music industry, and probably still is -- we just don't hear about it anymore. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that when you buy the CD that's all you buy. Well, the record companies seemed to think that you din't even have the right to resell it if you didn't want it anymore. I believe they were "blackballing" record stores that sold used CD's. The "problem" of course being that there is no degradation of quality in a used CD as there was on vinyl.

I do have to disagree with the record companies on that one. It should be perfectly legal to sell your CD's. The only caveat being, you shouldn't keep any recordings (MP3, tape, CD-burner, etc) of the music on the CD's when you sell it.

I can imagine there are those with CD-burners who buy a CD, burn a copy, then sell the used CD. Though, I doubt they really get much from a store for the used CD. But I guess it would save them more than the cost of buying a CD-R to record it on.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

Dave Van Allen · Post by **Dave Van Allen** » 16 Mar 2001 6:26 am

At least DVA, the self-proclaimed site cop, has realized he cannot run with the big dogs and stays on the porch by not participating on the OTB any more.

I'm not sure which pi$$es me off more Frank... your assumption that I am a Napster advocate (I am most assuredly not) or the proclamation above which avers that since I do not choose to participate in the feces-slinging-fest of the OTB that I am somehow inadequate. As far as site cop- oh well, at least I can read and comprehend a request from the forum moderator to post in the correct forum section.

I do not participate in the OTB precisely because of such antagonistic half baked drivvel.

I have other more pressing issues in my life; being the best father I can be to my son, earning a living while the economy goes to hell (whoever's fault it may be), and trying to be the best musician I can. I don't need confrontation and slander, politics and holier than thou attitudes distracting me. This may be interpreted as my own "holier than thou" attitude, but it's how I choose to live my life as a free American citizen with all the rights to free speech (or right not to speak) granted by the bill of rights.

so kiss off, pal.

[This message was edited by Dave Van Allen on 16 March 2001 at 06:27 AM.]

Chris Walke · Post by **Chris Walke** » 16 Mar 2001 6:59 am

Frank Estes · Post by **Frank Estes** » 16 Mar 2001 8:03 am

This may be interpreted as my own "holier than thou" attitude,

You got it!

but it's how I choose to live my life as a free American citizen with all the rights to free speech (or right not to speak) granted by the bill of rights.

Obviously, YOUR free speech rights supercede mine!

so kiss off, pal.

You're a first class example for your son!

BTW, you got "run over" during the "collison" with Burns because you chimed in with him. You two are the ones who changed the tone of this thread, so deal with the consequences and stop crying.

Post by **b0b** » 16 Mar 2001 8:37 am

Let's stop the mud-slinging and keep this thread on topic. Thanks.

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/Averybob.gif" width=64 height=81>
 -b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
-System Administrator

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 16 Mar 2001 9:21 am

Again, David P. brings up a good point. Regarding the sale of used CD's, I think the recording industry, at least for a while, was trying to say that CD's can be compared to computer software. For example, when you buy a copy of software, you are only purchasing a license to use ONE COPY of that software. If you transfer or otherwise assign the your software to someone else you are usually not legally allowed to keep ANY copies of it, because the license to use it stays with the copy of the software. Thus, you are legally supposed to erase or delete any copies of software that you sell.

Of course, CD's don't fall into this same set of restrictions -- at least not yet. I don't see it happening. For one thing, there is a lot more at stake in the case of software. Let's say an engineering company buys a couple copies of AutoCAD software and installs it on two dozen computers. Well, if the owners of AutoCAD get wind of this, they could bring all kinds of trouble down on this engineering company because the engineering company could be held liable to AutoCAD for some of the profits they made off of the 22 illegal copies of AutoCAD.

On the other hand, if somebody sells a music CD without deleting a digital copy, what's the record company going gain by going after the person who sold it? There are no profits shares to be gained. The record companies probably aren't going to bother with it anymore because it's a no-win situation for them. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 16 March 2001 at 09:35 AM.]

Dave Van Allen · Post by **Dave Van Allen** » 16 Mar 2001 9:24 am

Frank

Matthew 5:38-39

That's the example I set for my son.

Also by not using Napster to steal.

Chris Walke · Post by **Chris Walke** » 16 Mar 2001 9:38 am

DVA-

I've never met Frank, but I will presume he is actually a nice guy. I mean c'mon, he's a steel player. He just seems to get worked up and says mean things from time to time. It's best to just let it go because every defense warrants another snide remark. It won't end. Remember the old OT board?