Check This out! Your hard drive can be used to snoop for marketing data. Article on Salon.Com

A voice from a recording artist -- Member of A F M Local 308, August 2001

[althouth this is now dated, and Napster is going to either die or become a subscription service, the principles have not changed. I have removed the bulk of the pages here, but intend to put up new information and links and rants about the music industry as they come in]

To Nab or not to Nab, that is the question. Just what does "Nab" mean? It means: "to seize, grab, or snatch", or "to take into custody as of suspected criminals . . . ." Or, it's the abbreviation for the New American Bible.

Music is important in our lives, a legitimate need, but are you -- the public -- willing to act illegitimately to take music just because the interests of the big bad major labels are contrary to your interests and the interest of artists? How can you legitimately serve both artist and audience? The simple answer is not the easy answer. We must establish legitimate and equitable ways for a recording artist to earn money doing what an artist does best -- making music.

Aug.3, in the LA Times a 15 year old says, "Musicians are just going to have to find a way to make money in other ways such as through concerts and merchandise." He's probably never heard of tour support, and how much it actually costs to produce concerts these days. In regards to merchandise, why not just tell artists to start flipping burgers instead. Why shouldn't artists get paid, just like everyone else, for the work that they do?

There is an exchange or currency which is being ignored-- the artist's creation. The moment an artist creates a song, it belongs to the artist. This is copyright. This is the artist's property just as your furniture or CD player or computer are your property.

No one wants their personal property "altered, abused, taken, exploited, nor used by others for their own commercial purposes". If Napster or any of these mega portals for music sharing (streching the limits of "personal use") is making ANY money from banner ads, etc., from copyrighted material which an artist or label has not given expression permission to use, then this is violating copyright. With permission, sharing; without permission, stealing. It's that simple. Did every single artist residing in someone's hard drive somewhere give express permission for you to distribute copies of their material for free?

Here's some food for thought:

If I work hard, invest time and money to create a product, should someone else be able to have the benefit of that product without having to pay for it? If I have a fruit and vegetable garden, is it ok for everyone else to come pick it without my permission just because it's now "cool" and easy to do so? However, if I give my friends a basket to fill or invite them to share in the food on my table, that's different. the analogy is not a perfect one really since vegetables and fruits cannot be perfectly digitally reproduced (we need replicators) although there are a lot of parallels between music and a good feast. Heh, software companies get pretty upset when they find out someone is using their software for free. Is it really sharing?

And just what is a definition of sharing? If copyright says you can make copies of something you have bought for your personal use, then does this mean offering it to thousands of strangers just because you can.

IMHO, a painting or a song is still a noun, with shades of verb, even though a song may seem less tangible than my fruits and vegetables. Like vegetables and fruit, songs may pass through me . . .I don't own their DNA map, but I worked hard to make them grow. The verb is the process or the experience of the participants, wither audience or creator(s). There is a part in the process of creating or performing when a song or painting no longer feels like it is my own, and I too want my baby "to roam the world", but if prints or copies are made, why should the artist (the lowest on the toem) be the only one not to benefit?

Copyright laws may be in some need of reworking. But the trend would seem to be not in favor of artists. Just look at the the new "WORK FOR HIRE" provision which has been passed by Confress by stealth tacked onto some other legislation. If an artist signs this "WORK FOR HIRE" contract, in effect, the artist is giving away all past, present future rights to his/her work. Screwed again.

I have issues with the way the music industry has reduced music to a product to sustain their boardroom bottom lines, and the institutionalized crime of standard industry practices. Free expression and having music freely available is a good thing, an integral part of our daily lives, part of "community" -- but music is not "FOR FREE". One invests in it just as one does any other business, dendeavor or path with time and/or money. This is still in the realm of commerce and one cannot give away everything for free without a complete reassessment and reworking of all of our basic economic premises, not to mention human nature and entrenched systems.

Just because information is so easily replicable? In some parallel universe, where we can all bang on our drum all day long, and food magically appears on our tables because we all can walk out toe the free gardens, and we're all happily ever after cooperating and sharing and living in our new digital villages, music will fill the air . . . la la la la la la.....can't help myself, sorry... please give me a replicator now!!!!