Re: Napster injunction

On Thu, Jul 27, 2000, Robert S. Gurwin <itlawyer[_at_]worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Subject: The Day The Music Died
>
> [...]
> From whichever side of the fence we sit concerning the issue
> of "sharing" services like Napster, there is no question that
> Napster's immense popularity and high profile will effectuate
> major changes in the way music is licensed, distributed and
> heard.

   "A person at one of the major record labels said that most, if not    all, of the labels have considered purchasing Napster and finding    a way to license the content exchanged by users. But that person    said that the labels appear not to be able to find a way to make    the service profitable while permitting the wide exchange of    content that has made it so popular."

   http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/articles/28music.html

MP3.com and scour.net have been making deals with the labels.

But analysts have been advising the labels to do this for years. Apparently they don't want to give up control. They prefer trying to sell full CDs instead of the equivalent of 45 singles, and they want to try to maximize the price of an album instead of seeking the price the customer perceives as giving value. Also, they want to maintain control over distribution and not provide a means for artists to bypass them and sell directly.

And the computer industry is stalling attempts to finalize SMID to encrypt content. The music industry wants control of that too.

So meanwhile the customers are forced to Gnutella or Freenet or some other distributed means of sharing, that will be much more difficult for the labels to control. They will have won the battle against a high-profile corporation, but lost the war to meet the needs of their customers.

Eric Eldred
<eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> Received on Fri Jul 28 2000 - 15:11:08 GMT