patrick lichty on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:29:36 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Napster: a review

>patrick lichty writes:
>> To exaggerate the point, if I had done so for an entire year, such
>> an endeavor would have 'saved' me somewhere in the range of $23,000.
>> Even with the online scheme of $1 per song, the potential revenue
>> is closer to $16,000.

To which Decklin Foster Replied:

>Oh, this is complte bullocks. You are aware that we have already gone
>through this argument with the issue of ``warez'', right? Hint: I
>don't *make* $23,000, or even $16,000, a year.

I would suggest that you re-read the text and note that these figures are
merely 'hypothetical' and 'exaggerated' (both pretty clearly stated in the
text) only to make a point that _if_, and I reiterate _IF_, someone were to be
a consistent downloader, that they would 'technically' rack up thousands of
dollars of content.  This is illustrated not to pose MY point, but to
illustrate the inflated, almost hysterical view that the RIAA is presenting. 
Later on, I state that due to technical issues, such radical numbers are hardly
feasible, or even possible.

Yes, the 'warez' argument is old as dirt, and the above was not intended as a

>> Napster itself is not a piracy tool.

That was a rhetorical comment, and it got the proper response.
Many years ago I 'knew' various Atari 800 Warez groups, and even have a copy of
Bill Gates' open letter on software duplication, which I find fairly

>``content marketers'' can die a horrible death as far as I'm
>       Being a ``content provider'' is prostitution work that
>       devalues our art and doesn't satisfy our spirits.
>               -- Courtney Love

As an activist dedicated to opposing corporate abuses of power, I frequently
agree with you.  However, in a capitalist society, there are often certain
constraints placed upon us by the systems of power already in effect.  This
does not mean that we cannot oppose them or question same, it frequently means
that we have to work from within (although one could argue that one cannot work
outside a system one is located within, but that's different.) 

I hope that it is obvious to the reading public that I have misgivings with the
RIAA's approach to the unauthorized use fo recorded material, as well as the
'apparent' copyright abuse that _some_ Napster users exhibit.  In my opinion,
there aren't necessarily 'good' or 'bad' guys in this situation, as Napster is
merely a technology, subject to the way it is used.

In any case, my goal was not to judge, but only to inquire from a critical

My apologies if any offense is taken.

>There is no TRUTH. There is no REALITY. There is no CONSISTENCY. There
>are no ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS. I'm very probably wrong. -- BSD fortune(6)

- One of my favorite statements. One I live by.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: