 |
|
|
|
What's your reaction to this column? Share your thoughts on the MESSAGE BOARD
Also From Modern Humorist: Colin Powell's Pop Pals Dear Dick: A Letter From George W. Boredom in the Court Behind the Music Napsteropoly Macdonna's Wedding Box Set of the Year Rock 'n' Roll Factory Worker Phish Fan Resume |
|
EMusic: Fight the Power by Bob Lefsetz 1 Of the major-label execs, only Edgar Bronfman Jr. has taken a hard stand against online piracy. And there's a very simple reason. HE OWNS THE COMPANY! Think of the old days. When Ahmet Ertegun, his brother, and a partner owned Atlantic Records. Do you think they would have stood by as their tunes were traded for free on Napster? How about Jac Holzman? How about MORRIS LEVY?? The companies of these entrepreneurs were not international conglomerates. Nothing ensured their ongoing success. If someone was threatening their livelihood, these owners took action. But no major players in the music business are owners anymore. Everybody works for the Man. Making a VERY serious salary. So big, that most Americans could retire for life on one year's remuneration. So these execs' livelihoods are not in jeopardy. And although they are loyal to their companies, there's just not the passion. The cold-bloodedness when something is your baby. And this is unfortunate. Because the artists. The artists are owners. But they're secondary in today's reality. Despite all the name-checks. They're pawns in the game. Their interests are way down the line. Just necessary evils to be dealt with. 2 The people at Napster believe they've only created a directory. That what they're doing is not illegal. I don't agree with them, but I understand their position. The appeals court could review the statutes and say Napster is not liable. They could also say the statutes don't apply, but using their equitable power, enjoin Napster. Or, as we were tipped off in the hearing over a month ago, they could say THE LABELS WENT AFTER THE WRONG GUYS!!! Yup, if you paid close attention to the hearing, there was a constant line of questioning regarding end users. The attorney for the RIAA was asked why individuals weren't being sued. The answer? The record companies didn't want to piss the consumer off. Now that's just not that good a reason. Napster requires three elements in order to function. Napster, the end user, and the music. Eliminate one, and the whole pyramid falls apart. But the major labels decided to only go after Napster. This doesn't sound like such a hot strategy to me. This doesn't sound like the strategy that OWNERS use. Owners sue EVERYBODY!!! They're PISSED! SOMEONE'S GOT TO PAY!! They don't limit their actions; they cast as wide a net as possible. Interestingly, Metallica weren't worried about pissing off their fans, yet the faceless corporations were worried about pissing off the end users??? Huh? When most fans don't even know what label their favorite act records for, the labels are hesitant? Hell, look at the Firestone case. Firestone's going under. It made defective tires. It's all over. But do you think that means the company is going to close all the factories, fire all the employees, go out of business?? OF COURSE NOT!! Firestone is owned by BRIDGESTONE! If the Firestone brand takes too big a hit, we'll be told that Firestone is ceasing to operate, but what will happen is that the old sign will be torn and replaced by a new one. It'll be the same old factories, but now it'll be called BRIDGESTONE! Worst-case scenario, the major labels just change the name of the companies. No one's going to notice. But that's taking it to the extreme. The old entrepreneurs. They would have fought, saying they'd EARNED the money. They were ENTITLED! Why don't the major labels say the same thing! If someone went and ripped off a factory, they'd sue. This is worse, and they do NOTHING! Furthermore, juxtaposed with the issue of consumers being pissed at the labels, is the issue of consumers getting inured to free product. Not interested in EVER paying again. I ask you, which is WORSE?? Oh, the labels could sue individuals. Make an example. Isn't that how the law works in America? Like speeding. You don't nail EVERYBODY! Just a few. And word gets out. And everybody else is careful. Meanwhile, in California, the penalty for speeding is raised SO high that it puts a true dent in your wallet. We've already got severe penalties for copyright infringement. That's half the battle. Now all we have to do is USE them! But, the argument goes, we're waiting for the Napster thing to sort itself out. But this is a losing strategy. For as time goes by and more people get stuff for free ... it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
