The Steel Guitar Forum

stop

Regarding the high cost of CDs. As I understand it (and I could be mistaken), the retailer gets around half the money, the distribnuter gets around 25%, and the record company gets the rest, out of which they have to pay the artist.

I only get 87 cents for every copy sold of my recording.

This is why so many artists choose to press up their own CDs instead of going through a record company.

Good point, Mike P. It seems like, if you plan on selling a million or more copies of a CD, the regular distibution channels might be cost effective. But for niche and specialty artists, or anyone who doesn't play the usual "bubblegum pop" music of the masses, doing it yourself probably is the most cost effective route.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=85000700

Ted Nugent weighs in on Napster.

<SMALL>The record companies probably aren't going to bother with it anymore because it's a no-win situation for them.</SMALL>

The record companies can't afford to go after the "small-time" offender. It's just not practical. Which is why people will always be able to copy friends' CD's, with nothing but their morals to stop it.

The record companies do seem to go after things like recording devices (didn't they do this for cassette recorders?), putting a tax on CD-R media (which presumes partial guilt by anybody buying the media), etc. All things that I think weren't very smart to do.

Fortunately, they're not trying to go after the MP3 format (or did they?), peer-to-peer connections (on what basis could they?), etc. Obviously, people CAN still make MP3's of songs and share with their buddies via the internet -- heck, with broadband, you could just email the MP3's. The record companies can never stop this, and they shouldn't waste their time trying.

What they ARE going after, with the Napster case, is basically the idea that a person can essentially advertise "hey, I've got this CD over here, and it's yours for the taking". That's the essence of what people who make songs available for upload on Napster are doing.

No longer are they just letting their CD be copied by a few friends. They literally invite the world to make digital copies. And have the audacity to call it "music sharing".

The guy who started Napster didn't think things through very well when he made his "service" public. Did he ever really think that the music industry wouldn't come down on him like a ton of bricks?

There are other "services" out there, too, that let people do peer-to-peer connections to copy music from each other. But you basically have to find somebody on your own who's willing to "share" with you. IMO, the record companies won't be able to touch these "services". Esp. since most of them will let you share any type of file, not just MP3 files.

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

Once again, my respect for Ted Nugent grows (though I don't care for his music at all).

Though, technically, Napster isn't giving away the music. It's just enabling others to do it more easily and on a huge scale.



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

Sorry, b0b. I should have sent an email.

OK guys, I held off as long as I could. I now have a question.If I copy a song from Napster to learn, that makes it for my own personal use. I have no intention of selling it or running off a bunch of copies. One at the most so I can get it to the practice room and learn it. The chances are good that it will never leave my home, and willprobably end up like other blank tapes or CD's I own,in a pile somewhere. So where is the right or wrong there? If I went and bought the album it was on,if you could even find some of them, you would still have to copy it to learn. I would anyway because I don't have a speed control on my CD player. Wouldn't that be like taking it off the radio which I'm sure many of us have? I don't want to cause a riff I am just asking. I also realize the other side of it since some of my best friends are songwriters. It's a fine line. And it's a line I know many of us have crossed at one time or another. We could discuss this forever and get nowhere. It's too bad but that's also what the courts are gonna do. Fight forever and get nowhere. Napster has been ordered to do this or that. Hey, They are still up and running three weeks after they were told to shut it down. I am kind of straying here but it's hard not to because so many different things enter in this discussion.

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

As funny as it may sound, Craig, my "wrath" (for lack of a better term at the moment) is much more directed at those who make the songs available for upload, than towards those who do the actualy downloading. Without them, there'd be no problem. Of course, if nobody downloaded, either, there wouldn't be a problem. I think the idea, though, behind Napster is that everybody's supposed to do both. "Sharing" is what they call it. It's "selfish" to only download.

As somebody else pointed out, though, copying from the radio is different, in that there was payment made for playing that song over the airwaves. They pay every time it's played. Whoever made your download of a song available on Napster only paid once for the CD. He's not authorized to "broadcast" it.

Another thing that you may not be aware of: if you download that song off of Napster and leave it on your computer in MP3 format, it IS available for others to upload from your computer. At least that's the way the program is set up. I believe it is possible to set it up to disallow uploads -- and of course, you can always remove MP3 files from your computer. So, somebody COULD be making copies from you, even if you're unaware of that fact. Usually, though, people are going to download from somebody who has a broad-band access, not a modem.

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

David, The reason I asked is because I have copied a couple of tunes to learn and then put them on a disk. I then went in and earased them from my computer for the very reason you speak of. Therefore no one else is getting to it. If you look at the bottom of the transfer at Napster it will tell how many files if any you are sharing. I don't make a big habit of it but have used it. If I wanted an album like Mr. Hughey's I would most definetly by it, which I plan to do. Or anybody elses. A lot of the tunes on Napster end up not downloading all the way for some reason and I would want the whole thing.

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

Glad to see you're aware of those aspects of Napster, Craig -- not everybody is.

I'll answer your question about "right or wrong" with how I try to approach things like this. In this case, I'd imagine myself asking the performing artist, or the songwriter, about whether or not they'd mind if I copied the song from Napster instead of buying the song from CD (I'm assuming it's available on CD). Then I'd let the degree of uncomfortableness I'd have in asking them, and my imagined response they'd give be my guide as to whether it's right or wrong to download the file for those purposes.

To me, that truly gets at the heart of the morality (not legality) of it all. It's sort of similar to what a wise landman (in the oil industry) told me once about how to approach fairness in unitizations agreements with various landowners. He said "Treat each landowner like you would your own mother -- would you tell your mom that this unitization is a good deal?".

I ask myself similar questions in other areas of life, too. Forgive just one example, if I may. If you've been to my website, you know I take a lot of concert pictures of The Wilkinsons. (I also take concert pictures of others, but don't bother creating a website for those - too much work). Legally, I have every right to do what I want with those pictures, including selling them for a profit. (Some of them make very nice 8x10's).

But I ask myself, would The Wilkinsons (and their management, etc.) really want me to do that? I have to answer that question with a "no", because I think that I'd be directly competing with their merchandising efforts, and I don't think that would be right of me (even though it'd be perfectly legal).

Therefore, I don't advertise any of those pictures for sale at all. Now, I do make exceptions every once in a while. If a fan emails me and asks about it (esp. if they ask for a specific picture or 2 that they really like), I will almost always agree to make them an 8x10. But I charge just enough to handle my shipping costs, plus the cost of making the print.

I have wrestled with that to some degree (I could always just say "I don't do that"). But I think I could stand before them and tell them what I'm doing, and they'd be OK with it. In fact, I've done that with The Wilkinsons themselves.

I certainly don't want to sound like I've never copied a song or software in my life. That's not true at all. So I can hardly stand in judgment of anybody for doing the same thing. All I can say is I try very hard not to make that a common practice in my life. And that the fact that I've done things wrong doesn't make it right. Not for me, nor for others.

I suppose it's hypocritical to ask others not to copy songs if I've done it before. But we've all lied before, too -- and yet we teach our children that it's wrong to lie. None of us is perfect, yet that doesn't mean we can't stand up and say "this is wrong, and that's right".

Sorry for rambling on.

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

Boy, you know what food and clothes cost to much these days. I think I will go down to the Wal-Mart super store and Napster me some for free. How long do you think that will last.

No one has the right to take someones property for free regradless of what it is, food, music, car, ect. It is wrong!!

Frank you and Bob tell like its. Theift by any name is wrong.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by bob drawbaugh on 18 March 2001 at 09:22 AM.]</p></FONT>