Three Easy Solutions For The Napster Problem May 5th, 2000 The Napster Problem. You know, we have a saying at The Mac Observer. Say anything you want about us, just make sure you spell our name right. It's not terribly original, I know, but it's a good saying when you want the public thinking about you. Get your name out there. Perhaps that is what Napster is doing right now, just trying to get their name out in front of as many people as possible. Though they are exceeding beyond the wildest fantasies of the most depraved PR goon's imagination, I don't actually think that's their motive. I think they think they are "right." That's too bad, really, because they aren't. Let me get some things out of the way. I have used Macster, and I have tried Rapster. I have downloaded songs that I don't own through traditional means, and this makes me somewhat of a hypocrite in regards to the rest of this column and my own philosophy. I won't try to rationalize anything other than saying that I no longer use the services for anything I don't own. Ok, I did just download "The Kid Is Hot Tonight" by Loverboy because I wanted to make fun of a friend who was wearing a headband for jogging. If you are too young or too old to understand the relationship between headbands and Loverboy, suffice it to say that it was a terribly witty joke on my part. Interestingly, I have bought more CDs in the last 3 months since I first started using MP3s than I have in the last 6 years. It's not some form of guilt either, I have just been more interested in music since it became easier to manage it from my computer. More: When someone downloads a song they don't own from Napster, it is stealing. Some bands don't mind. For their songs, it's not stealing because permission has been granted. In fact, that is the great beauty of Napster: bands that want to see their music distributed as far and wide as possible without worrying about being compensated can do so. It's a great tool for up and coming bands, independent labels, bands comprised of boneheads who think it is wrong to profit from their art, and really rich people like David Bowie who couldn't possibly care about making another dollar and are just pleased as punch that someone cares enough about them to listen to their music. There are other really great uses for Napster too. However, there are bands that get tense about not being paid for their work. I hear Metallica is one of them. More power to them! Metallica is standing up for what they believe, despite the fact that it is going to lose them some 335,000 fans (at the last count). There was a particular comment that I really respected from Lars Ulrich, the band's drummer: "For the doubters out there, Metallica will carry on for the next 20 years. Whether you're around for the ride or not, that's your problem, not ours." Yeah, that's sure to make some folks happy. Next: I think that Napster is a bit screwed up. While there is a very explicit note in the Windows Napster client that expressly explains the copyright issues, it is their only perceptible nod towards these issues that I have seen. That wording: PLEASE NOTE: Napster, Inc. makes no representations or warranties regarding MP3 files possessed by Napster users. Thousands of MP3 files have been authorized for distribution over the Internet by copyright owners; however, Napster users should understand that MP3 files may have been created or distributed without copyright owner authorization. Neither the MP3 file format nor the Napster software indicates whether a particular MP3 file has been authorized for copying or distribution. Copying or distributing unauthorized MP3 files may violate United States and/or foreign copyright laws. Compliance with copyright law remains your responsibility. And the truth is that they are not responsible. I really think Metallica, Dr. Dre and whomever is lame to try and blame Napster for the sins of their users. This is typical of American culture these days. Blame everyone but those actually responsible. To play Devil's Advocate, Metallica has actually shifted at least part of their blame onto users by targeting them. Of course, Napster is unlikely to lose any of the lawsuits that have so far been handed them. Nonetheless, the legitimate uses of Napster more than outweigh the criminal uses in my opinion. That said, I believe the company should do more to condemn piracy and offer some options to protect artists and the evil labels who do still have rights. Speaking of evil record labels, they really do need to quit fighting the Internet so much. Instead of trying to plug their finger in the dike, they should be racing at light speeds to find ways to make money with the new technologies out here or they will soon go the way of the dodo bird. I think that extinction is likely for most of them though. So let's get to the solutions. The first thing I would like to suggest is that Napster offer an "Opt-in" or "Opt-out" program. Depending on which way they went, bands could specifically add their names to a list of bands that allow their music to be traded, or add their names to a list of bands that do not allow their music to be traded. Napster could make this list available on their Web site with a link in the software that takes you to said list. Not sure if Richard Hell and the Voidoids are cool with you trading "Love Comes In Spurts?" You can go and have a look-see. This solution is far from perfect to be sure, but it would at least give a nod to the ethical issues involved. Option 2 is the most practical, especially in terms of money. This concept involves several companies, but all of them would give any number of body parts to cooperate. Napster could quite easily (in terms of existing technology) add a feature to their software that would make it easy for people to go and purchase the music they are trading. The company could add the ability to go to a Web page that had direct links for purchasing the CDs of that band. There would be several issues to solve, but this is not cutting edge stuff. This is how it would work: A user might do a search for Loverboy on Napster (or Macster, Rapster, and the other miscellaneous clients available), and get a list of all the Loverboy songs available through other issues. If "Turn Me Loose" catches his fancy, he might notice the "Buy Me Now" button next to the song. Click on that and go directly to a Web page that has been compiled from databases like CDDB, CDNow.com (assuming they are still in business at that time), Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, and anyone else keen on doing business with the gagillion or so Napster users. Some songs are not ripped properly by the people doing the ripping and all the right ID information won't be available for all songs, so once again there would be problems, but these are minor. Once you clicked on the button and the databases on the other end did their work, you would have direct purchase options from multiple vendors. The labels make money, the retailers make money, the artists make money, and best of all, Napster makes a tidy fortune by facilitating these trades (all worked out ahead of time of course). This is a no-brainer to me and it is somewhat appalling that such a service hasn't been offered by the Napster folks. Option 3 is much better, but the infrastructure is not available yet. The "Buy Me Now" button would ideally actually take you to a service within the Napster client that would allow you to purchase that song for somewhere between a nickel and a dollar (there will be that artist who is the first to charge a buck per song. It will probably be Michael Jackson.) With a secure buying system built into Napster, it is likely that sales would add up at a stunning rate. Once again the label makes money, the artist makes money, Napster makes money, and the customer finally realizes the benefits from the dramatically reduced costs of distributing music accorded by the Internet in general and Napster in particular. The problem is that the infrastructure is not here in the financial world to support this model, at least not quite. With service fees running as high as US$1.50 per transaction (don't hold me to that number), the service fees would dwarf even Michael Jackson's overpriced songs. It is simply not profitable yet to do business a dime at a time, even on the Internet. It will be though. I will hazard that Napster could single handily usher this into reality too. As I said earlier, there are a gazillion people using Napster, and LOTS of companies would do anything to do business with them. I think that some of these companies would even find an economical way of doing business one dime at a time. The free market is a good thing. But this means that the Napster folks have to get off their high-horse of "we're the new wave and you label people are the dinosaurs and there's nothing you can do and nahnny-nahnny-boo-boo..." I hope this is something they can do, because MP3s aren't going away for good or bad. Your comments are welcomed.