Music consumers have done well out of Napster and similar file-sharing software. But where does that leave the artist? Maybe Metallica and Dr Dre had a valid point.

Read Full Article

Napster as many of you know it is effectively no more. As I write this piece I'm doing Napster searches for Madonna, Metallica, Britney, Korn (nothing found), Ricky Martin (nothing found) and U2 - again, nothing found. Perhaps I'm logged onto a lame server, but my gut feeling tells me that Napster is already beginning to comply with the demand that it ceases to allow users to trade MP3 files without authorization from the copyright owners.

If you haven't already heard, a US Federal Judge has issued an injunction against Napster, finding that it encourages and facilitates music piracy. The RIAA has been ordered to post a $5 million bond to compensate Napster for lost business should Napster ultimately win its legal battles. The injunction takes effect at midnight (PST) on Friday.

But let's not look at the legal decision as a bitter end for Napster. Perhaps we should look at it as just the beginning of a new wave of music distribution and music consumption. Admittedly, file-sharing is nothing new. But tools such as Napster, as well as the MP3 codec, brought the benefits of file-sharing to a mass of users who benefitted from simple interfaces, relatively tolerable file sizes and a click and collect philosophy.

If anything, Napster has empowered the music consumer. The consumer can download music on demand. The consumer can preview albums and make informed choices about their purchases. The consumer can taste test songs by listening to streaming downloads or even time and space shift their experience with Zip drives. The recent Jupiter Communications study asserts that Napster users are 45 percent more likely to have increased their overall music purchasing than non-users. The finding makes a lot of sense when you give it some thought.

But what has Napster brought the artist? If you accept the Jupiter study on its own merits, you could say that Napster indeed benefits artists. But, as has been posted on many a messageboard, where are the artists' 'airplay' royalties? It's an important point to remember.

After all, Napster relies on artists out there making music. Surely, they deserve something more in return for their creative efforts. Maybe music downloaded via Napster cannot be bought in your area and perhaps you're wary about making payments via the web or the phone. Maybe you'll keep your MP3s and not buy the CD. Maybe you collect MP3s and delete them after a period of time. Either way, the artist isn't getting a an airplay royalty.

There are indeed other forms of compensation, such as the potential of attracting a new fan who may attend concerts and buy t-shirts. But some artists want financial payment instead of publicity and viral marketing. And what's wrong with that?

So what impact will the Napster decision have on protecting artists' copyright? If anything it appears that music lovers are rapidly dumping Napster and using other types of software. As I write this piece, C-Net is >reporting that Gnutella and Scour Exchange have been 'knocked offline' due to a surge of new users. Presumably, many of these people have migrated from Napster. There's also a very good chance that people are also flocking to underground 'Napster' servers, courtesy of Napigator.

PC Data Online is currently claiming 60 percent of Napster fans will continue to download music regardless of the injunction against Napster. Taking all things into account, it seems that people are going to share and collect music regardless of what some judge in the USA decides. After all, the web is a global network.

Chuck D made a fine comment on RapStation when he said:
"If Patel was the key judge at the last turn of the century, we'd still be relying on horses and buggies and trains to get around. Stopping the process of file sharing is like trying to control the rain."

But questions remain. How can artists benefit financially from the likes of Napster? And what if some artists choose to oppose having their music shared online?

File-sharing is indeed about 'power to the people'. However, what powers do the artists have in this new world? Maybe Metallica and Dr Dre were gallant in standing up for their rights. The music consumer is getting a great deal out of file-sharing, but is the artist doing as well?

Please speak your mind in the messageboard below

 

Related Stories: