July 23, 2001

7:17 AM

Goose-killers suddenly notice absence of golden eggs?With Napster neutralised, the distributed alternatives thriving, and their commercial schemes mired in technological and political difficulties, many record industry execs are quietly wishing they'd done things differently. Should we regret the lost opportunity, or celebrate it as a self-inflicted step towards breaking the stranglehold of the major labels?
posted by holgate (19 comments total)

They should regret the lost opportunity. We should laugh ourselves silly.
posted by jfuller at 7:29 AM on July 23, 2001

...rocker Alanis Morissette...

Maybe that's their problem right there...
posted by ry at 7:37 AM on July 23, 2001

Anyone with one year of business school can tell you this: manufacturers cannot do retail. It's not just music, but everything. It rarely works.

For a retail channel to work, they need third-party objectivity. The record company's big interest and financial motivation is selling their music, not making a system that consumers like. They will invariably mess this up.
posted by brucec at 7:38 AM on July 23, 2001

RIAA killed the radio star.

Or something like that. The record industry really shot themselves in the foot this time. Meanwhile, the beat rolls on. The article mentions some of the alternatives, so far the best I've found is Kazaa ( kazaa.com ). In some ways it's even better than Napster was in the good "old" days.

Happy trading.
posted by Outlawyr at 7:43 AM on July 23, 2001

They should regret the lost opportunity. We should laugh ourselves silly.

That was my immediate response. But in the meantime, the price of CDs is inching towards $20 in the US, and is already well over that price outside the US; conversely, the alternatives can't really go mainstream because they're on an hour-to-hour litigation watch against the RIAA: any kind of success becomes a commercial death-knell.

So, do we get a couple more years of stalemate, punctuated by lawsuits, before any kind of resolution?
posted by holgate at 7:54 AM on July 23, 2001

Jfuller: Trust me. I am laughing...Im doing that Rolling on the floor thing and laughing. I am not surprised at all the Music industry is in a shithole that they have created for themselves.

They can wallow in it for as long as they want. When they are ready to get out of it and need me (The consumer) to help. They just have to tell me.
posted by Qambient at 7:57 AM on July 23, 2001

That was my immediate response. But in the meantime, the price of CDs is inching towards $20 in the US, and is already well over that price outside the US; conversely, the alternatives can't really go mainstream because they're on an hour-to-hour litigation watch against the RIAA: any kind of success becomes a commercial death-knell.

the price of cds go up, the price of fast, cheap cd recorders and digital media go down. this doesn't seem much of a problem to me.
posted by dogmatic at 8:14 AM on July 23, 2001

Twenty dollar disc?
No thanks, says college student
Kazaa is cheaper

CD Burner? Check.
Kazaa? Check. Winamp? Got it.
What more do you need?

Napster is now dead
Competitors keep coming
R I A A sad
posted by dogmatic at 8:22 AM on July 23, 2001

dogmatic: That was really impressive.

And the record companies have been screwing themselves up for years; it's just finally hitting the fan.
posted by matt8313 at 8:39 AM on July 23, 2001

Gawd-damn, folks. I know we feel strongly about this, but hasn't this dead horse been beaten a few times recently? Double-double post?
posted by msacheson at 9:05 AM on July 23, 2001

They didn't understand what they were trying to destroy; lawyers, advisers, finance people all told the descision makers at the big labels that Napster could harm sales and that the obvious solution was to kill it in it's infancy rather than wait and see.

So, do we get a couple more years of stalemate, punctuated by lawsuits, before any kind of resolution?
At least, and the resolution will only be good for one group of people (clue: not the consumers).
Most likely outcome is that the RIAA will continue to chase down and kill the more successful alternatives until they themselves come up with something they can use - which will be a poor imitation of the freedom Napster gave, but will be profitable in the short term.
Then, in a few years time another Napsteresque solution to free music will come along and the whole dance will start again.
posted by Markb at 9:21 AM on July 23, 2001

> Gawd-damn, folks. I know we feel strongly about this,
> but hasn't this dead horse been beaten a few times
> recently? Double-double post?

I'm going to risk some possible flamage and re-post (rather than linking to) something I wrote in another thread recently. Here's what I wrote previously:

" One thing I miss about USENET is long-running discussions. On community weblogs, topics die out too quickly. A new subject + link is posted, there's a rush of comments on this new topic, and then after a day or two people quit looking at the thread. If I happen to see something old that I'd like to comment on, I know nobody's going to see my comment unless I take the subject back to the top page (and then I know somebody's going to yammer at me about double posts.) "

If the site isn't set up to support one long-running thread about a subject of continuing interest like file-sharing (and it isn't,) then the alternatives are to post frequent new front-page links about it, or just not mention it at all.

If the latter choice is the right one, then I'd like to point out that we've also way overused sex, drugs and Dubya as topics for this year and I don't want to hear any more about any of these until, oh, 2003.
posted by jfuller at 9:45 AM on July 23, 2001

To hell with CD companies - buy albums.

And remember - no pushing! There's plenty of Jethro Tull to go around :)
posted by UncleFes at 9:46 AM on July 23, 2001

Double-double post?

Well, it's the first time the record industry is reported as expressing doubts about their strategy to litigate file-sharing technology into the ground. Which puts a bit of life into the old donkey.
posted by holgate at 9:49 AM on July 23, 2001

jfuller & holgate: good comments, both.
posted by msacheson at 9:54 AM on July 23, 2001

If the site isn't set up to support one long-running thread about a subject of continuing interest like file-sharing (and it isn't,) then the alternatives are to post frequent new front-page links about it, or just not mention it at all.

i guess maybe it'd work if everyone here would use the recent comments option... but i still prefer the newest post setup.
posted by lotsofno at 6:37 PM on July 23, 2001

We should all definitely celebrate at the recording industry's expense. The recording industry has an unfair monopoly and have been spending their time cutting off the heads of the hydra, rather than attacking the heart of the matter... that they can't stop people from doing what they want to do. They have to work with the fans out there and provide services that are appreciated.

How many businesses can exist out there that provide a service that most people don't appreciate and even resent? Not many. Well, whether they like it or not, the recording industry is a business. They should focus on addressing the anger of those who use their service and try making money through empowering people rather than dictating to or threatening them. The problem is that the recording industry is all about control. Until they fundamentally change their mindset, I can't see anything worthwhile coming from them.

That is one of the biggest reasons I believe in empowering people to create and distribute customized content on the Internet... it will allow people to bypass traditional means of distribution. That's a very worthy cause, in my opinion.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:24 PM on July 23, 2001

<Nelson>
HA-ha!
</Nelson>
posted by rodii at 7:41 PM on July 23, 2001

Look, in the words of Bill Hicks, If we're talking shelf life here, could you stop bringing up Jesus to me? It's a downer. Hell, it's been two thousand years, why do we keep having to hear about this!? I personally don't give a flying fuck about the record companies, Napster or its alternatives when I'm pretty sure we'll all be dead fairly soon, but if people feel strongly enough about it to post their thoughts, why does it become so important to squash the expression?

Shit, we discussed that once already. I'd best remind everyone. Because clearly, you can only discuss a topic once.

Well, here's an idea I'm sure is radical: if a double post occurs and you're convinced there's nothing new or interesting to say about it, don't read it. Is it so horrible that other people might return to a topic? Does it require the creation of a MetaFilter Un-Weblog Activities Commission, complete with its own Tailgunner Joe?

Sir, I have here a list of confirmed double-posters here on this very weblog!

If that's what you are into, feel free to get rolling with it. I can't think of anything that contributes to a discussion like ruthless suppression. You know, like what RIAA did to Napster?
posted by Ezrael at 5:24 AM on July 25, 2001