Help me with my article and get free press!
Recovered from the Internet Archive. This page comes from a ListenSmart.com capture saved by the Wayback Machine on October 5, 2000. The original text is preserved where it survives; links and layout have been adapted for this restoration. Historical account, search, posting, voting, playback and download features are inactive; their labels remain as plain text. Images that were never archived are left out. Audio files were not recovered for this archive.
Source: Wayback Machine capture of ubb.listensmart.com:80/ubb/Forum12/HTML/001339.html.
Removal requests: email seanfenlon@yahoo.com with the page address.
Email This Page to Someone! |
 Artist Only Boards [all categories]
 Artist Area
 Help me with my article and get free press!
Post New Topic |
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Help me with my article and get free press! |
| #1
writer Newbie Posts: 2 |
posted 05-18-2000 11:24 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for writer Edit/Delete Message 
Before you get too excited, let me explain that I work for a small weekly with limited distribution...but hey, press is press! What I need: I need to understand -- in a short and simple explaination -- what the whole deal is with the Napster thing and the MP3.com lawsuit... also... How do these same issues affect the unsigned artist? What has the internet done for you? Give your real name and where you're from if you want me to quote you and a url where I can find your music. Also give the name of three artists you think everyone should know about and where to find them. Thanks! ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #2
DoctorOakroot Guru Posts: 336 |
posted 05-18-2000 11:53 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for DoctorOakroot  Edit/Delete Message
Hi writer, Napster: Napster allows it's users to exchange mp3 files (mp3 just refers to a format for storing music - in this case). Napster itself never handles the music files. The problem is that many of Napsters users are ripping music from commercial CDs, encoding it as mp3 files and making it available on Napster. The actual copyright infringers are the hundreds of thousands of Napster users who are doing this. Suing them all would be unfeasible, so the music industry and some artists are going after Napster for facilitating the copyright infringement. MP3.com: MP3.com's core business has been publishing and distributing independent artists' music, with their permission and a very liberal contract (i.e. the artist retains all rights in the music). Recently, they started their my.mp3.com service to provide the owner of a copy of a commercial CD to play that CD from any computer whether or not he actually has the CD with him. It's pretty clear that if you bought a CD, ripped and encoded it an uploaded to your own, password protected webspace for your own use, it would be fair use. It's probably true that if MP3.com provided the web space for free and ran advertising on it, it would still be fair use. The complication is that MP3.com is providing the web space and a copy of the CD (but only to people who can prove they own the CD already). The result is exactly the same as if they allowed you to upload the CD for your own use - except that you don't have to wait several hours for the update or even know how to rip and encode. This makes it copyright infringement by a very technical reading of the law. However, since it's practical result is identical to a legal fair use, i.e., a CD owner can listen to the music from any computer while MP3.com is collecting ad revenues, IMO, the law will be overturned in the Supreme Court on a 'no harm - no foul' principle. My Online Experience: Online music distribution has beed good to me LOL - especially MP3.com. Between 50 and 200 people a day hear my music - many of these are new listeners. Because of MP3.com's 'pay for play' (called PfP or P4P by MP3.com artists), I'm getting paid for the use of my music - it works out to about 4 cents per listen since MP3.com raised the total payout to $1 million per month. Bad news? The PfP is not guaranteed to continue past the end of June, but I expect it will continue as long as MP3.com is solvant. The 'listener gets the music free and the artist gets paid from advertising revenue' seems to be the revenue model that's developing for the internet. I, for one, think it's a healthier model than trying to stick the fans for $20 for a piece of plastic. Doctor Oakroot PS My most recent music may be found at: [This message has been edited by DoctorOakroot (edited 05-18-2000).] [This message has been edited by DoctorOakroot (edited 05-18-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #3
DoctorOakroot Guru Posts: 336 |
posted 05-18-2000 12:18 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for DoctorOakroot Edit/Delete Message
Definitions (in case you need them) ripping is the process of copying music from a CD an converting it to a computer file (usually .WAV) encoding is the process of changing a computer sound file (usually .WAV) to MP3 format. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #4
writer Newbie Posts: 2 |
posted 05-18-2000 02:37 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for writer Edit/Delete Message
Thanx Doc...Much appreciated info! I'm gonna go check out your tunes right now. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #5
Davey Boy Crocky Guru Posts: 203 |
posted 05-18-2000 03:15 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for Davey Boy Crocky Edit/Delete Message
Hello writer! Doctor Oakroot is a friend of mine from here in Raleigh, NC. However, I do not totally agree with his opinions. I do agree with his assessment of Napster for the most part. However, my opinion is that Napster was created to specifically facilitate illegal piracy of copyrighted content. I do not think the company's actions and motives are ethical, regardless of how the lawsuit turns out. I do not believe that any court will overturn the decision in the RIAA vs. MP3.com case. It is, interestingly enough, the exact opposite of Napster. I believe the users of these systems are doing nothing illegal when they use this service. However, Mp3.com is distributing copyrighted materials in a commercial endevour without the permission of the copyright holders. I am gratified that the courts saw through the fair use smokescreen as easily as I did and have made the proper decision. What outrages me is that, although mp3.com has voluntarily removed the RIAA material from my.mp3.com, there are still hundreds of indie CD's being distributed without permission by that system. The court plainly declared that act to be a violation of copyright law, yet mp3.com has ignored that ruling. In my mind this action warrants an investigation by the FCC. I hope this offers you a different perspective you will find helpful in writing your article. - Davey Boy Crocky ------------------ Davey Boy Crocky's Solo Project [This message has been edited by Davey Boy Crocky (edited 05-18-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #6
STILL Guru Posts: 244 |
posted 05-18-2000 03:44 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for STILL Edit/Delete Message
I agree with Davey Boy about Napster, I think the INTENT was to get free music. And I've seen it posted that someone here actually talked to some of the guys at Napster, and they stated right up front that they were trying to screw the Labels out of existence. I also have some problems with the my.play issue. There is an issue of artist's music being used to generate money. If mp3 makes money in any way from the use of an artists music, then they owe that artist something. Another way to look at it is - since every time someone goes to look at and play their CD's from my.mp3 there is a banner ad download, then clearly mp3.com is benefiting from the artist's music - financially. And that doesn't even talk about the subscription service they were going to charge for this. In my mind this whole thing was never fair use, and the only reason you don't see the indies pissing and moaning is either that they don't have the money to fight it, or they are so small that they'll take any exposure, even if it's illegal. My own OMD (Online Music Distributor) experience has been largely irrelevant in my overall success or lack thereof. I've sold many times over more CD's live than the web, and I've been ranked high and featured on many sites, so it's not like I haven't received notice. My experience with mp3.com in particular was a horror show. The best return I've had from the web was in terms of reviews, connections, and the ability to find the right person at the right spot when I needed to. But in terms of people just finding me by accident and having that turn into something positive, it's very rare. Most of the traffic at my site is usually a direct result of a live show, or sometimes when I get in a big fight on various bulletin boards. And my experience has been that most bands on the web just plain aren't very good. No offense to anyone, it's just true. Here's some bands I liked off the top of my head, and yes some are friends, but I'm very honest about this stuff........ Little Days - mp3.com I was at #4 in the GarageBand.com final contest at one point, and the band at #1 was called "Neoverse", they had a very nice song called "Angel" - http://www.garageband.com/music/profile/song.html?*wiB89cxBQhzmnVu4 - that I liked quite well, can't say much else about them. There is a whole group here on this board that has a TON of background and history about how mp3.com has been lying to and misleading and using the artists for a long time. If you want to hear more about that, e-mail me and we'll be glad to fill you in. It's been well hashed here so I'm not going to kickstart an old fight. Feel free to check out my stuff if you like www.stillmusic.com/media_start.html . Wade Biery from STILL ------------------ [This message has been edited by STILL (edited 05-18-2000).] [This message has been edited by STILL (edited 05-18-2000).] IP: Logged |
| #7
RagtimeLady Newbie Posts: 58 |
posted 05-18-2000 10:39 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for RagtimeLady Edit/Delete Message
Thanks, Dr O for getting the facts and the underlying issues correct. I agree with Davey that the decision against mp3.com will not be overturned in higher courts. I'm a music historian (among other things) this sort of thing, when a new medium arises, has happened before. Copyright laws protect the rights of the owners to control distribution in the new medium. Regardless of whether or not a CD owner has the right and the capacity to rip and upload his CDs, no court that I can think of will agree that a third party has the right to copy and distribute a copyrighted work for profit, even if the intended beneficiary has possession of the work in a different format. Okay, you may argue that my.mp3.com was streaming content, not obviously downloadable. That would constitute a broadcast. The responsibility for licensing a song for broadcasting lies on the shoulders of the broadcaster, regardless of whether or not the recipient owns the recording being brodcast. Hope this helps... RAGards, ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #8
Andrew Hickey Guru Posts: 337 |
posted 05-19-2000 12:35 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for Andrew Hickey Edit/Delete Message
I agree with Davey for the most part... However... I actually believe MP3.com are being far less ethical than Napster and its users. While use of Napster is an infringement of copyright, it is no more so in any real sense than making tapes for your friends - and no-one stopped buying albums once it became possible to tape stuff. My own Napster use has been limited to stuff that's not been legitimately released, individual tracks I could have taped off the radio but would never have bought anyway, and the odd random track which has quite often led me to purchase a full album by the artist. In that respect it has if anything slightly increased my music buying. I'm not saying Napster is ethical, or in any way a good thing, but in my mind the row is more or less the same as 'Home Taping Is Killing Music' from the 70s... The *big* difference between the MP3.com and Napster things is that MP3.com is making money from ad revenue while pirating others' music, while Napster (last time I checked) doesn't have ads while you're swapping files. www.listensmart.com/stealth_munchkin ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #9
sins tailor Guru Posts: 539 |
posted 05-19-2000 10:59 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for sins tailor Edit/Delete Message
i would like to add to what andrew said in that my experience with napster is that most people downloading someones songs are already fans of that band ..hence they have already bought a lot of their products... not too many people going there to discover new stuff...but by strange coincidence that is happening by accident...i added a lot of my bands songs and they have been uploaded a bit....i have no idea why..they've never heard them,no pictures,no clips.....the only reason i can guess.. is that when you add someone to your hotlink(a feature that let's you view one person's entire collection)you may want to try out some of the songs he has if you like his taste in music..which is basically a pretty pure way to discover new music.....i also was searching for a song "title" by my favorite (out of print)band "the wipers" the song was called youth of america off the album of the same name...but all i came up with was a song called "youth of america" by "birdbrain" i thought it was a cover of that song so i downed it.....turns out it was a different song it was from the scream soundtrack.... now i love that song and i would buy an album by that group if and when they have one.....so in that sense a new purchasing fan was made.......also like some other musicians i go there to try to find some old songs that i have owned previously on vinyl...mostly ones that i can't find anywhere else...these songs i would buy again if i could ...but i was amazed that i could find such groups as amon duul,fever tree,white witch,pink fairies....and others most of these are groups that are long gone and out of print.....so i don't see it as all that bad........no one goes there looking to use this as their only source of music in my opinion....it's the same arguments that have been done before about blank cassette tapes..which facilitate the (downloading if you will)of music without any compensation for the artists..or radio airplay which can also be (downloaded to tape)so are radio stations facilitating theft?... are blank video tapes facilitating the theft of movies??? i don't have all the answers but basically everbody likes free stuff unless it's your stuff someones getting for free.........then it's got to be approved by you somehow.....the next step is the newer mutations of the napster software which allow users to share any and all files on their computers........this means free movies...software...programs....games.... basically napster is a drop and gnutella is the ocean.........you can get password numbers.....windows...etc....adult items(xxx)without any id check........believe me this can't last long......but it looks semi-unstoppable....like prostitution and drug dealing......we may just have to put up with these things and bust them once a week......ok so the online music sites haven't really done much for me at all... a little play here and there....a few cd's sold a few reviews.....but for the time invested i would have been better off with a lemonade stand......i think it works the same as the real world...it's still the footwork that counts.........you still gotta go door to door and knock......only now it's done by mouse and e-mail.......... my band is currently at www.listensmart.com/sinstailor
oh yeah real name david a burdick now live in coppell texas i'll get back top you on those three artists [This message has been edited by sins tailor (edited 05-19-2000).] IP: Logged |
All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Post New Topic  |
Hop to: Go |
Contact Us | ListenSmart.com
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.41a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.