Napster and the indy musician
That's why I don't have much use for the new defense from supporters of Napster Inc. who slam bands (such as Metallica) who are upholding their copyrights: "This isn't stealing, and even if it were, I wouldn't be stealing if you weren't such greedy bastards."
That new way of thinking might hold water with big-money bands, but it springs a leak when it comes to guys like me: independent musicians who are trying to make a living off their music without the support of major labels.
When did the attitude change? I'm not talking about ancient history here; I'm talking about the good old days around the rise of the Net!
Maybe you're old enough to recall the late '80s and early '90s, or maybe you're too young to remember before the Gold Rush of 1993 -- but I remember! I was there.
I recall the late '80s when "going online" meant calling up someone's computer to access their BBS. I remember before there was HTML and poking around in a mainframe computer was considered hacking. (Most companies' mainframe OSes were so customized that just knowing Unix wasn't enough to let you look around.)
What has all this to do with Napster? Everything!
I am a musician -- an "indy," which means I'm not signed to any large record company. And like many other indy musicians I have been watching this whole Napster deal with quite a bit of concern. Where and how will the chips fall, and how will they stack up for musicians like me?
I began to see some very disturbing elements in the whole debate. Napster could really be of great benefit to indy musicians, were it not for the behavior of its customers.
In their mad rush to justify unlawful downloading of copyrighted material, these users are giving Napster and any program like it a bad name, while forcing a draconian change in the copyright laws that will probably place the creation of or use of Napster (or Napster-like software) in the same legal category as viruses: illegal to own and illegal to use!
Some of you might think that these kind of legal steps won't matter or that nobody will be prosecuted for using this kind of software. Try telling that to any one of those 1.2 million Americans who are in prison right now for using illegal drugs. Use drugs, go to prison; use the wrong software and go to prison. (It's not that great a leap; just ask the guy who wrote the Melissa virus.)
Just how do we indies feel about this whole issue? Well, the term "burnt" does come to mind. What could be one of the greatest tools any indy musician ever got the chance to use is likely to blow up in our faces.
If the RIAA is the music industry's version of Count Dracula, what is Napster? Can you imagine anything so evil that you would ever consider asking a vampire for help against it? (Or even worse, that would prompt a vampire to say yes?)
Put this in perspective: What if it was your money being threatened? If you were the one being told you don't deserve to earn a living? That everyone else in the world should be allowed to take anything you create, any time they want, without compensating you? In fact, that there is something seriously wrong with you for expecting to be compensated for you work?
It's easy to see how this issue could become extremely personal, isn't it? And that's exactly what those people who are advocating the use of Napster or other software like it are telling the musical community. And it's us indies who are hearing it the loudest.
Stephen Walker started playing guitar at 14 and got his B.F.A. in music in 1986 from the United States International University in San Diego. He has played in five or six bands in the San Diego area over the past 25 or so years. In 1991 his band Dorian Grey formed its own record label (Loud Records) and released a four-song EP; it sold so well that Loud Records promptly went bankrupt. After the 1996 murder of Dorian Grey bassist William "Bill" Rill, the band broke up. Since then, Walker has worked on his own material, much of which is available in MP3 format.