Let's help Napster help us
Recovered from the Internet Archive. This page comes from a ListenSmart.com capture saved by the Wayback Machine on April 10, 2001. 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 marked as such. Audio files were not recovered for this archive.
Source: Wayback Machine capture of ubb.listensmart.com:80/ubb/Forum12/HTML/002658.html.
Removal requests: email seanfenlon@yahoo.com with the page address.
Email This Page to Someone! |
 Artist Only Boards [all categories]
 Artist Area
 Let's help Napster help us
Post New Topic |
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Let's help Napster help us |
| #1
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-05-2001 02:58 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee  Edit/Delete Message 
OK, here is the solution that Napster is in favor of. This is also the solution I am in favor off. I am emailing my Congressmen on behalf of this proposal. Plus members of the Senate Commitee. It's easy to do. And they write me back using snail mail. http://www.newmediamusic.com/articles/NM01040063.html
quote: The key element of this proposal is DIRECT PAYMENT to the artist for digital transmission of your music. It's pretty self explanatory I think, and hopefully it is something that the entire artist community AND digital community AND consumer community can get behind. They got the guns, but we got the numbers. For our new Alien members, "They got the positronic energy disruptors, but we got the Quantum Mass. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #2
notesleb Guru Posts: 577 |
posted 04-05-2001 05:37 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for notesleb Edit/Delete Message
Seems cool to me. IP: Logged |
| #3
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-05-2001 11:50 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Well, that's everyone then. Let's get rolling. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #4
TheBassDude Guru Posts: 388 |
posted 04-06-2001 07:04 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude Edit/Delete Message
quote: I hope that this terminology is an unintentional over-generalization of the group of copyright-holders that includes both artists and non-artists... I am not an artist in the band Dolo, but I am the copyright-holder of the songs on the album... The wording is a bit ambiguous, but it is a step in the right direction... I say let the lawyers work out the legalese... Hate to say I told you so, but it looks like "Plan A" was a flop... scurrying sounds as TheBassDude shuffles off in search of freshly-brewed wake-up serum... ------------------ [This message has been edited by TheBassDude (edited 04-06-2001).] IP: Logged |
| #5
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-06-2001 08:32 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
found this statement interesting.. quote: 18 months ago nobody at napster was concerned in the least with artists making money. it was all about artists were making too much money.. i wouldn't believe a word that comes from either napster or the riaa. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #6
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-06-2001 11:57 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Uh, deel? This particular proposal is about passing a compulsory licensing law in which the money is SENT DIRECTLY TO THE ARTISTS. Napster and the RIAA both have compulsory licensing proposals on the table. The Napster version sends the money to us. THAT IS THE VERSION WE LIKE. Did you even read the article, deel? ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #7
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-06-2001 04:23 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
yes i read it. hence my "actions speak louder than words" mention. this is all just talk. he says: quote: out of these 60 mil. how many are unsigned artists? most are listeners who want it for free. they'll go elsewhere to get it, for free. he swings out this: quote: in other words..the present system will not allow 60 million of his future customers the right to let him profit from other peoples music. so of course he's gonna raise the flag of "more money to the artists". if it sounds to good to be true ..then it probably is. i'm not going to swallow the hook on this one either KennyLee. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #8
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-06-2001 04:37 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Uh, deel. There is no hook to swallow. This is a pro-artist proposal. Mr. Barry is looking at launching a new subscription Napster this summer. That will pay the artists. And he cannot get licenses. So he wants a compulsory license. And he wants to pay the artists, not the RIAA. You see, there are 4 separate interests involved here. The RIAA, the artists, the consumers, the digital transmitters. Mr. Barry's proposal happens to be good for 3 of those interests. One of which is his, one of which is yours, one of which is his customers. What's your problem with this, dell? Are you so concerned about the RIAA, that you would not support something that helps artists if it also helps Napster? Cause thats what you seem to be saying here. THIS IS A PRO ARTIST PROPOSAL DEEL!! ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #9
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-06-2001 06:00 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
yes i support his concept. but, i'm not one of the people mr.barry was representing since i don't use napster. he's a buisiness man, not an independent musician. but..with sooo much at stake as far as money to not made by the riaa i don't see it happening, unless the riaa can profit even more from it. i think barry sees an angle to get the artists on his team, it's politics. sure all artists like me (the unsigned) will jump at the chance to get paid. it makes perfect sense to me. they're obviously making all this up as they go along, like the rest of us..and they're humans, hence my scepticism. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #10
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-06-2001 11:39 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: They may be humans, they may be aliens. Lot of aliens around lately. Anyhow, what you are clarifying is that you don't trust humans. Well, whoopdedoo, deel. It just so happens that the interests of the artists and the consumers and Napster are aligned. Why? Because of the $18.00 paid for a CD, the artists see very little,if any, of it. Who gets the money? The RIAA. Who pays the money? The consumer. Who uses Napster? The consumer. It has nothing to do with trust, or good people versus bad people. It is just an alignment of common interests. Compoulsory licensing with direct payment to artists is the solution to this mess. And you are more upset about it than most people, deel. Seems like you would be happy to support a solution. Or do you just want to gripe about the greediness of humans forever? ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #11
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-07-2001 12:11 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
quote: why not?
quote: i'm not upset, just stating my opinion. don't you think healthy debate usually leads to a better outcome, whatever the cause? i point out they are human and are fallible, so what. am i getting on your nerves? ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #12
TheBassDude Guru Posts: 388 |
posted 04-07-2001 07:36 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude Edit/Delete Message
Hmmmmmmm... I truly think that Deel is onto something here... Think about this scenario: Fact - the RIAA is more interested in keeping the money with the labels (et al) than giving it to "artists." Fact - Napster is trying like Hell to stay on the good side of the guys in power (RIAA). Fact - An outright capitulation on the part of Napster would bring the wrath of tens of thousands of Napsterites, thus alienating their core audience. Fact - Napster has a history of "molding" the language of the law to suite their own interests (with somewhat disasterous results). Supposition - What if Napster concocted this agreement with the understanding (between Napster and the RIAA) that members of the RIAA would be considered "artists," thus keeping the money going where it has always gone. Only now they would have the backing of tens of thousands of "artists" (as we define them) who think that they will be getting the lion's share of the mechanicals. Since the RIAA members would now be considered "artists," there would be some money trickling to the performers, but most would still go to those other artists... the labels. Granted, this is all speculation... but it's the only thing that makes any sense. Think about it... One of the mainstays of the recording industry's money-stream is mechanical royalties (which are already shared with artists, however inequitable a split it may be)... They're not going to just give that up without a fight... For them to do so, in light of this ambiguously worded agreement, sounds a little more than suspicious. It really sounds more like a "saving-face" ploy for Napster than anything else... Say one thing to please your core audience, but mean something else to the people about to eat you alive... Think about it. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TheBassDude (edited 04-07-2001).] IP: Logged |
| #13
TheBassDude Guru Posts: 388 |
posted 04-08-2001 02:23 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude Edit/Delete Message
boink! ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #14
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-08-2001 03:38 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Look, Bass Dude. Pretty woman picture. Hey, your facts are not facts at all. Just your take on things. We don't care WHY. All we know is we like the solution. Whoever came up with it. It makes it easier that Napster has presented it on the floor of the Senate. It makes it easier that Napster has paid for a toll-free line to Congress. Assuming, as you and deel do, that Napster is doing this for all the wrong reasons? The solution is still right. Oh, yeah. Look Bass Dude. [image not archived] She may be doing this for the wrong reasons, but it's all right to me. ------------------ [This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 04-08-2001).] IP: Logged |
| #15
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-08-2001 04:22 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
quote: what are the particulars of this solution? to some people the picture alone is enough. after all of the fees and internet transmission costs are tallied, what will be left to give to the artists? i haven't yet seen one independent artist testifying on the floor of the congress. the ones deciding the fate of the artists are not artists! in other words the foxes are running the henhouse. ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #16
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-08-2001 04:50 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Well, Don Henley is even better than an independent, He is turning against his own bosses. But, independent artists, by definition, do not have a lobbying effort in Congress. They are sole proprietorships. Unaffiliated. So what independent artists have to do is get behind someone else's proposal. Which is what I am talking about. Details? Well first Congress has to start moving on the proposal and then the details will come forth. THE BIG DETAIL IS: PAYMENTS DIRECTLY TO ARTISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is the one we will have to fight for. The amounts will be set at a fair rate because the major labels own a lot of copyrights. They won't let it get set too low. I like what Don Henley said. I like what Hank Barry said. They are organized and have clout to get this thing moving. As an independent artist I can support them in their efforts. Efforts that help them and also happen to help me. So get with the plan, deel. Don't make me send Natalie Brown over. Look, deel. [image not archived] ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #17
ATom2 Newbie Posts: 53 |
posted 04-08-2001 07:32 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for ATom2 Edit/Delete Message
I am Quantum Mass! ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #18
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-09-2001 12:14 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
nono not her! where's the other one..you know the jug band chick.  ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #19
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-09-2001 03:27 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: Ah, yes. The lovely and talented Angela Devi. [image not archived] Well, I can't send her over until you and BassDude get behind this proposal. And the way you're talking, it's looking more like "I want hurt somebody" Natalie Brown who'll be knocking your door. [image not archived] ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #20
TheBassDude Guru Posts: 388 |
posted 04-09-2001 07:03 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for TheBassDude Edit/Delete Message
quote: Ken, Ken, Ken... as usual you've missed the point of my supposition entirely! You were the one spouting the Napsterite retoric of "let's agree on a lexicon," so it surprises me that you let the term "artists" go undefined! Kind of like those K-Tel compilation records by "the Original Artists," (if you're old enough to remember them) Napster has given you exactly what you want to hear... but what does it mean? Where are the un-ambiguous details?
quote: Sounds like the status quo... What is the real difference between the Napster proposal and the way things are going now? Simple... the Napster proposal has appeased the masses... but the song remains the same!!! Artists (in the past few decades) have always been compensated in the form of mechanical royalties... where most of them screw up is when they take too much in the form of advances on those royalties... advances that need to be paid back. See? Artists got direct payment! They just owed too much of it to pay off their debts to the labels... Napster now wants to change this... how? and who again are the "artists" they wish to compensate? As I stated before, my take on this latest development is speculation... but it's speculation based on historic evidence. BTW - Do you really believe that that multi-million dollar corporation dba Napster has your best interests in mind? Above their own? Yeah, right... Checkout this prime real estate I wanna sell ya!!! ------------------ [This message has been edited by TheBassDude (edited 04-09-2001).] IP: Logged |
| #21
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-09-2001 12:07 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
Look BassDude. Picture of pretty bridge. [image not archived] Seems to me that you are pretending to be an RIAA artist, Bass Dude. A common fantasy. So recouping your advance is not your problem, or mine, or deel's. The proposal of Hank Barry said that the direct payment would not be recoupable against advances. But do we care? What we care about is that a compulsory rate for digital transmission is set. Allowing us to develop our own business model around that rate. Most important, allowing people to develop businesses for the digital transmission of music, knowing what the bottom line is. If I want to record a cover song? I know what the rate is. They have to let me do it. I know who to contact. People do it all the time. I radio wants to play a song? They know what the rate is. People have to let them do it. That is what the internet needs. The RIAA does not have to let anybody use their music on the internet. And they won't tell you what the rate is. So they can shut down every business opportunity for music. Except for the one's they own. Compulsory licensing. With Direct Payment to artists. That's what is needed. Artists need to see that. Look, BassDude. Picture of pretty glasses. [image not archived]
[This message has been edited by KennyLee (edited 04-09-2001).] IP: Logged |
| #22
deel Guru Posts: 271 |
posted 04-09-2001 04:29 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for deel Edit/Delete Message
quote: exactly. i'll be needing some better glasses myself K! ------------------ IP: Logged |
| #23
KennyLee Guru Posts: 1751 |
posted 04-09-2001 07:22 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for KennyLee Edit/Delete Message
quote: We may more than just glasses for you, deel. Maybe an interpreter and audio-visual presentation. All your questions can be answered this way. Everyone else will have the same problem. So a mechanism for keeping tabs on traffic and disseminating income will be set up. Just like it is today!! If and when a compulsory license law takes effect, then that is the way business will be done. And you will do it like everyone else. For example, if Garth Brooks decides today that he wants to record one of your compositions on his next album? Then the way that you get paid is setup already and you will just plug into that. Radio, TV, jukeboxes, whatever. I mean we are talking about passing a law, deel. You like laws, deel. You want Napster to follow the law, deel. Well, we are talking about a new law that even Napster wants. Not only a new law. We're talking about a whole new deel. ------------------ 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.