“When are you thinking of disappearing?” singer Gordon Downie murmurs on the song ‘Nothing But Heartache in Your Social Life’ released on his recent solo album Coke Machine Glow. In the background, film director Atom Egoyan tinkles away on flamenco guitar. What? Tragically Hip singer Gordon Downie and film director Atom Egoyan performing together on the same song? If that sounds intriguing, it is. And, until very recently it was also the type of song that was readily available at the site of online music swap-service Napster.
Music lovers who heard about new musical curiosities could sate their appetite for all things new by simply logging onto the Napster network and entering a search. And if that sounds like a convergence of corporate and consumer interests made in promotional heaven, it is, or was, sort of. Never before has word of mouth advertising translated so fluently into point-and-click consumption. At its peak, online consumer watch publication, Webnoize reported that 2.79 billion files were downloaded from Napster in a month.
The trouble is, the Napster service was entirely free. This gave music distributors and copyright holders pause: if people could download the product at no cost why would those people agree to pay for it? And I suppose this logic makes sense if you hold substantial interest in music as a product and are looking to the bottom line. Incidentally, many artists have argued the opposite, pointing out that Napster is a wonderful advertising and distribution tool, that Napster creates rather than curbs music sales.
However, all of this has changed. In an official press statement by Hank Barry, interim Napster CEO, May 3 Barry states that “over 80% of Napster users files are being blocked at the request of copyright holders.” The content choke is the result of Napster’s ongoing efforts to comply with the court ruling that required them to block copyrighted content being swapped through their service as identified by the copyright holders.
Sad as it may sound, for many music aficionados the blockages represent – quite literally – heartache in their social life. The World Wide Web has never produced a music site as exciting and innovative as Napster and it probably won’t produce another one, at least not for a long long time. For Napster, the answer to the question posed by Downie – “When are you thinking of disappearing?” – seems to be, “Right now!” If Napster doesn’t find a way to justify its existence it is headed for extinction.
In other words, where there was once a hugely successful music service there is now almost nothing. This won’t last. Now that the major labels have effectively shouldered Napster out, they are poised to launch online music services of their own, which will offer, essentially, a watered down version of what Napster offered. And, of course, they will offer it at a reasonable price.
This summer Warner Music Group, BMG Entertainment and EMI Recorded Music will team up with RealNetworks to launch an online music service called Musicnet.com. Meanwhile Universal Music Group and Sony Music are preparing to launch their own service, Duet. Presumably, profits from the services will go towards remunerating musicians for their efforts. And, as always, towards paying the bill for those who make music their business.
In their court battles with Napster, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), and the political voice of the major labels in their war against Napster, has always asserted that the real issue was whether Napster was respecting the copyright of artists. And – bizarrely – in this way, major labels have pegged themselves as champions of the little guy. A surreal stance given that the major record labels are now poised to, effectively, filch the intellectual property of Napster creator Shawn Fanning; namely, the brilliant idea that was Napster.
In one of the dwindling number of songs still swapped freely over the Napster, To Beat the Devil, country-outlaw singer Kris Kristoferson can still be heard to croon, “I ain’t saying that I beat the devil but I drank his beer for nothing and then I stole his song.” It is a sentiment that could easily characterise Fanning’s apparent attitude towards the major labels when he launched Napster. Now music labels like Warner, BMG, EMI, Universal, and Sony are the ones who seem to be singing Kristoferson’s tune.
If the real question behind free-music content online had been respect for intellectual property than those labels would be cutting a phat royalty cheque for Fanning. In its struggle against Napster, the RIAA has painted Fanning as a kind of devil. With the launch of online music services of their own devising, the majors have asserted that they are perfectly willing to sing Fanning’s song. They just don’t want him to reap the benefits.
