Even funnier is the BMG and Universal Agreement with Napster and the RIAA still doesn't get it.

The RIAA is taking on Napster only because it thinks that since Napster doesn't have the financial recources of say.. Microsoft, AOL, or the Government, that it will win. Funny, it isn't suing Intel, Diamond Rio, or Sony either (whom you may recalls make CD-R's for mp3 storage and mp3 players) or RCA (BMG) whom makes mp3 players.

Thanks for writing to us about Napster.

Since Napster put my name on its site with a direct e-mail connection, you can imagine that I have received thousands of e-mails.  Most were urgent pleas for Napster, most were from music lovers and some of them were even polite!

We’ve read your e-mails, and put together a short Q&A that addresses the most commonly asked questions.  I’ve printed it below.  We’ve also revised the Q&A on our website (http://www.riaa.com/napster.cfm) to address the issues you’ve raised, and I encourage you to read it.

But first, I want to address some of the common themes in this response to you.

1.    The record companies and artists who have repeatedly asked Napster and other sites offering similar services, want a simple thing that I am sure you want for your work - respect.  Napster has a new artist program where artists give permission to have their works shared.  Shouldn’t all artists have the same courtesy from Napster?

When an artist puts out a 12 track CD and only 1 track is good and I paid 17.00 for that, which is not refundable or exchangeable in most stores, I think the Napster service is fine since without it, I couldn't have made a better shopping decision. I respect an artist who puts a good CD but how often does that really happen? Be honest.. (try, it's hard, isn't it?). About respect, an organization which claims to represent artists but only companies can be a member and only the BIG 5 (Sony, BMG, Universal, Time-Warner, Seagrams). Artists can't be this stupid or can they Lars?

2.   Music is as important to all of us as it is to you.  Those of us who work with creative artists are especially grateful that we have a deep understanding of how hard artists work to achieve music that in their minds is good enough to offer to you.  That work takes time and money.

The record labels don't make enough money? Come on, there was an example of an artist who cleared $14,000 why the label made millions at the same time. You don't give a rat's ass about us otherwise, there wouldn't be so many counter lawsuits proving you are anti-trust and monopoly.

3.   The price of music today is the best entertainment value for the dollar.  Numerous studies have shown that the price of music has not even kept pace with inflation and has stayed more level than other entertainment products.  As the various media outlets for music increase, the cost of marketing and promotion go up, not down.  The price of the physical piece of plastic is the least relevant part of the costs of music.  The marketing and promotion that broadens the audience for an artist’s music is the most expensive part.  For a record company (big or small), 85% of all recordings fail to even make back their costs.  It is the small number of successful records that fund the development of new music.  Therefore, when someone takes the “hits” new artists are getting hurt as well.

Come on, Hilary, Take a trip into the Best Buy. If a consumer can get a 100 CD-R's by Sony or Imation for $59.99 to $79.99, you need not tell us that the record labels pay that. Come on, we are not as stupid as Judge Patel, and even she is probably not that stupid. Paid off, yes; stupid, no.

4.   For those who have written that Napster has been a source of education about new music, I say thanks for being open to new music.  There are numerous music sites on-line that promote new bands that don’t also encourage stealing from those that are already popular.  Go to MTV.com, getmusic.com, sonymusic.com. warnerbros.com. listen.com, launch.com, emusic.com, mp3.com, hollywoodandvine.com, artistdirect.com….the list goes on (Don't visit these sites as they are ANTI-artist, ANTI-technology, ANTI-government, ANTI-consumer).

If wasn't for Napster, we wouldn't know about any new music unless the BIG 5 or the RIAA wants us too. That's called control. This is not communist RUSSIA.

5.   A number of people have suggested that we “just don’t get it”.  People say if Napster is shut down, numerous other places are ready to takes its place.  Believe me, we do “get it” and we do understand both the technology and the interest people have in getting music on-line.  Litigating our way through the Internet is not our preferred or intended method.  We hope that once the service offered by Napster is confirmed to be against the law, that there will be little interest by most people in continuing to test their fate. While some may think that a Gnutella program or one of the many other kinds of open source programs offers anonymity to users, they don’t.  While I don’t have any illusions that all free music distribution will suddenly stop, I do believe that most people want to be honest and care about their favorite artists.

If you understood the technology and what you could have done with it, I would not have to waste time writing this. I could, instead, be outside at Lake Travis.  If the RIAA understands technology, why was it so OPPOSED to the Compact Disc developed in the US but sent to Japan because of the RIAA.

People are honest and reward artists whom do quality work in their respective genre's (notice I said genre's since Celine, Mariah, Britney, and Limp Bizkit are in different genre's). Why do you think Britney's sells as much as she does? What about Gloria, Madonna, Mariah, Celine, Faith?

It's really very simple. Put out quality songs instead of quantity or just rushing to get something out the door (like Britney's second album).

6.   Finally and most importantly, in my view, the legitimate on-line music business is developing quickly.  Artists and record companies know that you want music on-line and you want it soon, easy to use and at a good price.  That is the challenge of the music community.  It is a good challenge and I believe it will be met.  But it will be met with a fundamental difference from the way Napster operates.  A legitimate music business will recognize that music is the lifeblood and career for artists and songwriters and producers and musicians and many others.  That work must be respected and rewarded by those enjoying the fruits of their labor.

Price shouldn't be a challenge. You're not Chevron, or the Texas Apartment Association (or your state or area's apartment association). Historically, greed was rewarded then thwarted. History repeats itself. I am waiting for someone to have a class action suit against the RIAA and I join faster than you can say .. uh. If it's about the artists, then why do you and the labels want to keep them from using the internet as an alternate sales channel and why do you not want them own part or all of the recording the artists hath made. 

Thanks again for sharing your views.

Sincerely,

Hilary Rosen

President and CEO

Recording Industry Association of America

What is the RIAA action against Napster all about?

It's about squashing the idead of 19 year old. I guarantee if a woman or older person had done the same thing, the RIAA wouldn't say anything since they know that minority businesses would almost always win.

RIAA, on behalf of its members, sued Napster because it launched a service that enables and facilitates piracy of music on an unprecedented scale.

But, an RIAA member and high executive of a label said it was okay to make tapes and distribute them.  I can easily call the library, put in a request for the music, rent it for FREE, get CD quality for FREE, and not even use Napster.  I can call a radio station easily and perform a similar transaction.

The overwhelming majority of the MP3 files offered on Napster are infringing—and the district court found that Napster knows this and even encourages it. Napster is thus enabling and encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music.  Just because Napster itself may not house the infringing recordings does not mean Napster is not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright law has long recognized that someone who materially contributes to infringing activity, with knowledge of that activity, is liable for copyright infringement as if that person did the copying him or herself.

They are NOT offered on Napster Servers. They are on my computer.  I have over 1200 CD's which I'm converting to mp3 at the rate of 27 CD's per day. A Napster Server is a network.

Just like the one you have at the RIAA.  You have an email server which everyone with the required access is able to use. Napster is the same. The only difference is that it's global. That is ONLY difference. I know what I'm talking about since I am an MCSE with over three (3) years experience.

Is this a lawsuit to stop the use of MP3 technology?  

No, we and the RIAA actually agree on something. Hot damn! It had to happen. It's Murphy's Law. The suit is about a small company, because as previously stated near the top of this page. Napster is small, therefore poor in the RIAA's eyes. An easy bug to squash. Unlike, Microsoft or AOL or Time-Warner or Sony or the US Government. It's about control of money which the RIAA would lose in this case (and still will even if they "win" (notice the quotes).

No. The suit is against Napster, the company, and not MP3 technology.  Any company that offers to help distribute illegally obtained music is a problem—whether that music is transmitted on tape, CD, or on the Internet in whatever form.

RIAA only has a problem with the illegal uses of the format to distribute copyrighted recordings without the permission of the artist or record company. To the extent that artists choose to use MP3 technology to distribute their work - music that they own the rights to - that’s great; in fact, it’s a potent example of the ways in which the Internet can connect creators and fans and produce new opportunities for the distribution of music.

Napster’s copyright protection page clearly says it revokes the ability of users to access Napster if they violate copyright law. Isn’t that enough?

A few words cannot undo the harm caused by hundreds of thousands of Napster users unlawfully downloading millions of infringing music files. In any event, Napster’s actions speak louder than its words. Napster is actively encouraging and facilitating the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music.

CD sales are up. That is harmful (specially when the prices keep going up). What about all the people in record stores whom copy the "promos?" I know this happens and could easily expose this but at what cost?

While Napster now claims that it’s all about creating a community for the new and unknown artist, the district court found that it was just an afterthought to try to help them in the litigation. Before this litigation, Napster was more forthright about its true purpose. On its web site, Napster touted itself as the “world’s largest MP3 music library” that “ensures the availability of every song online.” Leaving little doubt about its disregard for the unknown artist, Napster boasted that “Napster virtually guarantees you’ll find the music you want, when you want it ... and you can forget about wading through page after page of unknown artists.”

Judge Patel is paid off. Bottom Line.

Napster is unfair to the artists and musicians who have invested their time, effort and money to create music.

Isn’t this just like the motion picture association’s battle against VCRs in the 1980s?

Yes it is Hilary, it's also just like your opposition to CD Technology which bolstered the Japanese economy instead of the US economy.

Not at all. A VCR can be used lawfully (time-shifting, rentals, home movies) and never infringe on a copyright.  The overwhelming use of Napster, by contrast, is for infringing purposes. Indeed, the district court found that Napster did not have any non-infringing uses that were commercially significant.  The magnitude of the activity is also very different. An individual making a copy of a TV program (which she was invited to watch for free) so that she can watch it later cannot be equated with an individual re-distributing a copy of a CD to millions of anonymous strangers who were not invited by the copyright owner to get it for free.

So, according to Hilary, when I use Macrovision to copy a movie, it's okay. Wonder the MPAA thinks about that?

Finally, the record industry is embracing Internet technology and actively working to take advantage of the new technologies for the delivery of music online.  But it’s very hard for an artist or label to sell their music online when the same songs are available from Napster for free.

Where was this (until after Napster gained the support of 75% or more of the people). Now, all of sudden, mp3 has made appearance on many record label websites and all of sudden, the labels want to work with mp3.com (someone must be scared of losing MONOPOLY power).

Don’t technologies like Gnutella and Freenet pose the greatest risk for the recording industry?  Why worry about Napster?

Record companies have lived with piracy forever, so new technologies for piracy on the Internet is nothing new. Certainly, there will be challenging issues to address, and perhaps technical measures will be helpful.  But, the mere fact that there are other piracy challenges on the Internet is not a reason to do nothing about commercial operations like Napster, which seek to build multi-billion dollar businesses on copyrighted works they neither own nor license.

Blah.. Blah.. Blah.. I can write better marketing that this. This bitch should fired.

Record companies recognize that the ultimate response to technologies like Gnutella and Freenet is a legitimate alternative that consumers will prefer. It’s up to the industry to offer consumers such convenient access to music, with such ease of operation and great sound quality, that consumers will choose to use legitimate sites.  They’re also likely to prefer dealing with legitimate sites so as to avoid the security and privacy risks of dealing with anonymous strangers on the “Undernet.”

What do artists think of Napster’s system?

We wouldn't know. Most have been kept quiet. And, to top that of, the RIAA has purposely lied to artists about the money they could make from this (as in secure mp3 or wma or asf files).

Prince has said support. Courtney Love has said support. Limp Bizcuit has said support.

Madonna has stated support. Her only issue was the incomplete version of 'Music' which if you think about that, incomplete means that it was in the studio which means someone in the studio uploaded to a website and/or Napster which means a member of the RIAA is using Napster. Common sense.

Artists have been voicing their opinions in increasing numbers.  Many appreciate the promotional opportunity the Internet presents, but have passionate feelings about being able to decide where and how their music is distributed and to receive some compensation for its use.  Here are just a few examples of what artists are saying.

         “Many artists have spent their lives honing their craft and now some anonymous person in a little dark room with a computer somewhere is able to collate that lifetime’s work and pass it around the world for free. It’s just not on. Stealing is stealing regardless of what name you choose to call it.”

         Matt Johnson of The The

         “It pisses me off and I resent it. I spent $15,000 on my Web site. I paid a publicist for a year and a half out of my own pocket. And now some kid’s going to tell me my catalog should be free? They’re just entrepreneurs setting themselves up to make a ton of money off other people’s work. Where’s the compensation for the artists? I know people using Napster are chuckling about kicking big, bad record labels. But as evil as the record companies may be, at least they’re paying for your recording budget, and at least they’re promoting you, and paying for tour support. We can make a new model - yeah right. It’s laughable. Those people have no idea how the music business works. Because unless you’re Alanis Morissette or Dave Matthews, 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.”

         Jonatha Brook, Salon, March 25, 2000

         “Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work.”

         Lou Reed

         “I don’t have a big giant record deal or a movie deal.  I don’t make money on the road; I lose money on the road.  A Newsweek article said, ‘It’s the kids versus the suits.’  Well, it’s not really that - it’s kids versus the damn musicians, the people you supposedly like, whose music you listen to.”

         Aimee Mann, Yahoo! Internet Life, August 2000

         “Napster presents huge problems for the artists.  It raises the questions - which is positive - of where and how artists are compensated.  But I don’t agree with the model they’ve set up.  The artists should be the person who’s ultimately in a position to decide when, where, and how something should be shared with whomever they choose to share it with.”

         Alanis Morissette, Yahoo! Internet Life, August 2000

Once I purchase a CD or movie, doesn’t the “fair use” doctrine and “personal use” allow me to use my CD as I see fit?

The “fair use doctrine” of copyright law is complicated and its application varies depending on the specific facts and circumstances.  In general, the doctrine can allow someone to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display and/or perform a copyrighted work depending upon the nature of the use (commercial purposes, non-profit, educational), the length of the excerpt, how distinctive the original work is, and how the use will impact the market for the original work.

You just negated the use of sharing files:

• In general, the doctrine can allow someone to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display and/or perform a copyrighted work depending upon the nature of the use (commercial purposes, non-profit, educational), the length of the excerpt, how distinctive the original work is, and how the use will impact the market for the original work.

You don’t have to be a copyright lawyer to know that it is not “fair” to allow an individual to make copies of copyrighted music available to millions of anonymous strangers.  That’s the equivalent of publishing, and  few people would argue that you can publish someone else’s copyrighted work without his or her permission. In fact, courts have routinely held that wholesale copying and distribution of the entirety of creative works is not a fair use. The district court in this case came to the same conclusion.

Life isn't fair. Business isn't fair. That's what monopolies always claim when they're caught. US Steel, Standard Oil, Microsoft.

Regarding “personal use,” there is a big difference between a consumer making a copy for his or her own personal use, and that same consumer making the file available on Napster where it can be freely downloaded by millions of people. Not even the staunchest proponents of consumer rights have suggested that the latter is fair or lawful.

When I make mp3, its for personal use on my 6 computer network. This means that 6 computer have access to this file, regardless if Napster, AOL clients, Time-Warner clients are running. This is called networking and anyone that has access to my network and the directory the files are in may use them, even you Hilary. Would you like a NON-Napster account to my computer? 

How is downloading files from Napster different from recording from the radio or making mix tapes for friends?

Remember, it's okay to share music via radio, government libraries, TV, cassette. Just don't digitize to CD.

Taping a song from the radio for your personal use is nothing like file trading.  Unlike radio, file trading allows you to search for specific songs and access them at will.  Also, the quality of downloads is much better.  You are able to get a copy of the whole song, without a DJ talking over it or another song being mixed in.  Downloads are digital and as such don’t lose sound quality in the transfer, as you do with analog tape. Most important, the harm that can be caused by file trading over the Internet is orders of magnitude greater than the impact of off-air taping.

File trading is also nothing like trading mix tapes. The more appropriate analogy is if you give your mix tape to millions of anonymous strangers.  That’s not legal, and it’s certainly not innocent.

Oh, now, we took away the tape sharing.

Aren’t record companies at fault for the proliferation of file trading because they’ve been so slow in offering music on the Internet?

This is a one word answer question, not a life story question. The answer is:

YES

The Internet is revolutionizing entertainment - and the recording industry embraces it.  Our reason for existence is to find, develop, and promote talented musicians. We build careers and make a contribution to our ever-evolving culture.

I guess that could not create a mindless job position for themselves so they are against the Internet.

In order to accomplish this, we must market and distribute our catalogs in ways that are legal and that result in the creators being fairly compensated. It takes an enormous amount of effort to determine how to offer music to consumers online in a way that meets their needs and grows the business.  Method of delivery, format, rights clearances, relationships with retailers, and price structure are but a few of the many issues to be worked out, as is negotiating for digital distribution rights where necessary with artists, songwriters, publishers, and their representative organizations in the US and abroad.

Some examples of how record companies are going digital are:

(All this during the advent of Napster last year)

         Many record labels have been licensing personalized webcasting services, and many more are on the way;

         Three of the five major labels (EMI, Sony and Universal) have already begun offering digital downloads via the Internet.  The other major labels and several independent labels (e.g., Zomba and TVT) have likewise announced plans to begin digital downloads of music and are slated to begin operations in the near future;

         Warner, BMG, EMI, Beggar’s Banquet, and other labels have already licensed MP3.com, MusicBank, and other services to offer consumers the ability to store their music wherever they are and whenever they want;

         Sony, Universal and EMI have announced that they will soon be offering a subscription service to consumers for the first time.

If music wasn’t so expensive, wouldn’t there be less incentive to want to file-share?

YES, there would. And also, if we could return something that we only liked one song and buy the song.

First, this is not file sharing.  This is unauthorized, illegal file duplication - on a massive scale.  Sharing is when one person gives up something for another - a half a piece of pie, for example, or the use of a car.  With Napster, nobody is giving up anything because everybody gets to keep a copy.  And that’s just plain wrong.

And, Napster, is a database (like a Microsoft Access or SQL Server or Oracle database which does not house music the last time I used any database program).

Second, the price of music is not just the cost of the plastic on which it’s recorded, any more than the price of a movie is based on the cost of the film.  The price of a CD includes the cost of paying all the people who helped create it.  Those people include songwriters, artists, background musicians, studio engineers, talent scouts, marketers and retailers, among many others. It also carries with it the enormous costs of marketing and promotion that are required to call attention to the album in our oversaturated entertainment market.

Didn't she forget the managers, numerous attorneys, and accountants (most of which aren't really needed but if you don't have them, you cannot get into the Big 5 labels)?

Why is the market over-saturated?

In any event, dissatisfaction with the price is not a justification for stealing.  Would you steal a book on the grounds that its price is too high?  Or break into a theater because the tickets cost too much?