Lars finally responds on the Metallica/Napster imbroglio. I guess it's easy to make fun of Metallica, but I have less and less good feelings for Napster. I wish there was an open standard in place so that the "free information" side wasn't in a position to make a boat load of money off the whole thing. Seems like that sort of ruins the argument. But could a napster clone, without any corporate backing, make it beyond the small percentage of super geeks?
how are they positioned to make boatloads of money and at what point were they corporatized?
Napster has been a privately held company since the beginning. They have never released the source code of their program (not that they necessarily should, but it's a clue about their future intentions.) Although they have no obvious revenue model, we all know that doesn't mean too much these days. They just (this week) received $15 million more in venture capital, and the "boatload" would come in when (or if) they have an IPO. The backup plan would be to sell the whole thing to somebody else (AOL I guess, but maybe yahoo, or some other portal.) I'm not saying that the business model can make tons of money, but the people behind this are poised to make a lot of money. And all these legal "problems" are really helping out (as you pointed out in your post showing the incredible increase in use since all the press.)
so should noone create software to generate revenue? is that the essence of open source? and is all copyright law a farce? is a profit motive inherently evil? can you rightly be remunerated for your labors? questions questions.
People should be able to be compensated for thier work. My (potential) problem with Napster is that their value (Wall St. IPO value) rests on their service undermining copyright laws. Napster is about sharing information. Cool. But then it seems like they might not want to share their information. Wait a minute. I'll have to look into this some more to make sure I have my facts right, but I think that while you can download the Napster client for free, and third parties have reverse engineered the protocol to make other clients (like rapster for the Mac,) the central Napster servers that control the information are closed. So, while this is a little simple, I fear Napster might fall into the position of saying "We're not responsible for protecting your copyrights, but you better respect ours." Now like I said, it's not really that easy. But there could be a problem here. Their product is the most well known of a whole class of internet/digital file sharing software that is really going to change the balance of power in the media industry. Good. But I don't want to see Napster installed as a replacement to the MPAA and RIAA. If we're going to get rid of these copyright laws on information that can't be protected anyway (debatable, but I lean that way) then let's really get rid of it and not just shift the power from one large corporation to another.
As for the essence of open source, this is a long debate. Basically there are two camps, the Free Software camp and the Open Source camp. The Free Software side is unrelentingly rigorous in their belief that software (but not necessarily other digital information like music or video) should be freely shareable. Lots of information on the gnu website (gnu is the label for the free software tools that Richard Stallman wrote that form the basis of the Unix computer world today. Amazing, legendary programming stuff.) The Open Source side is led by Eric Raymond (author of the very influential essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar) and they have a more concilliatory attitude toward the present day powers that be (big business.) They think software should be open (i.e., that the source code should be accessible, in sort of a peer review type way) but that companies should do this because it's actually better for them in the long run (or even the short run.) They think Software should be open only if it benefits both the users and the companies. For Stallman the decision should have nothing to do with the potential profitability of the system for major corporations. One of the major "freedoms" he wants for software is: "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." And this is the shortest way to understand his position. It seems simplistic, but I've found it really grows on you if you think about it. If your friend asks for some help with her computer, you should help her. Period. If you have copyrighted tools that can help, you should use those, or whatever means you have to help. Basically, we should always help our friends, and never let these laws get in our way. That is basic to society he thinks. And since he's dedicated his life to producing free tools (and actually has made many of the best ones) and since he has turned down millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars from the other side, he is at least practicing what he preaches. Anyway, both sides agree that "free" in free software is not about money. "Free as in speach, not beer" is the classic line of explanation. You can charge what you want, but you have to share. (An example would be RedHat. They sell for a profit the freely available linux OS. They sell it by adding value in terms of configuration and installation and service. But you could get the software for free.)
Now, however, people are dragging this kind of free software thinking over into other areas of intellectual property. Like digital music. We have all, I'd bet, always made copies of records for friends. This sort of sharing is what friends do. This is good. Now with the internet, and file sharing programs like Napster, this sharing is (supposedly) accelerating to the point where the record industries are complaining they won't be able to make ANY money. They're saying something like what you asked: shouldn't people (music artists) be compensated for their work? Napster says sure, but it's not our place to police our users (who are ripping you off.) I agree. But I fear that they don't really believe what they say. Like they are winking each time they protest. I fear that really they are happy that people use their service to pirate music, not because they believe society is better if we all share with our friends, but because they believe it will make them a boat load of money when they go public. This is my personal speculation. We'll see what they do. Maybe they'll take the money and plow it back into the amateur music scene. But my (rather long winded point) is that I would be more behind them if they had a more Richard Stallman approach. They should own up to what people use their service for, and stand behind it. It is possible to argue that we should be able to make copies and share these things. But they can't take that strong (radical?) ethical stance if they are going to make money of it themselves through owning some other piece of intellecual property.
And just to wrap up, I don't think people have any obligation to believe these things about sharing, or to give away their labor for free. But if you do, then it puts you in a position to argue for more radical change in IP laws without being a hypocrit. Napster might turn out to be acting hypocritically. I'm worried by that. That's all.
|
- jim 5-26-2000 7:16 pm
how are they positioned to make boatloads of money and at what point were they corporatized?
- dave 5-26-2000 7:54 pm
Napster has been a privately held company since the beginning. They have never released the source code of their program (not that they necessarily should, but it's a clue about their future intentions.) Although they have no obvious revenue model, we all know that doesn't mean too much these days. They just (this week) received $15 million more in venture capital, and the "boatload" would come in when (or if) they have an IPO. The backup plan would be to sell the whole thing to somebody else (AOL I guess, but maybe yahoo, or some other portal.) I'm not saying that the business model can make tons of money, but the people behind this are poised to make a lot of money. And all these legal "problems" are really helping out (as you pointed out in your post showing the incredible increase in use since all the press.)
- jim 5-26-2000 11:17 pm
so should noone create software to generate revenue? is that the essence of open source? and is all copyright law a farce? is a profit motive inherently evil? can you rightly be remunerated for your labors? questions questions.
- dave 5-26-2000 11:53 pm
People should be able to be compensated for thier work. My (potential) problem with Napster is that their value (Wall St. IPO value) rests on their service undermining copyright laws. Napster is about sharing information. Cool. But then it seems like they might not want to share their information. Wait a minute. I'll have to look into this some more to make sure I have my facts right, but I think that while you can download the Napster client for free, and third parties have reverse engineered the protocol to make other clients (like rapster for the Mac,) the central Napster servers that control the information are closed. So, while this is a little simple, I fear Napster might fall into the position of saying "We're not responsible for protecting your copyrights, but you better respect ours." Now like I said, it's not really that easy. But there could be a problem here. Their product is the most well known of a whole class of internet/digital file sharing software that is really going to change the balance of power in the media industry. Good. But I don't want to see Napster installed as a replacement to the MPAA and RIAA. If we're going to get rid of these copyright laws on information that can't be protected anyway (debatable, but I lean that way) then let's really get rid of it and not just shift the power from one large corporation to another.
As for the essence of open source, this is a long debate. Basically there are two camps, the Free Software camp and the Open Source camp. The Free Software side is unrelentingly rigorous in their belief that software (but not necessarily other digital information like music or video) should be freely shareable. Lots of information on the gnu website (gnu is the label for the free software tools that Richard Stallman wrote that form the basis of the Unix computer world today. Amazing, legendary programming stuff.) The Open Source side is led by Eric Raymond (author of the very influential essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar) and they have a more concilliatory attitude toward the present day powers that be (big business.) They think software should be open (i.e., that the source code should be accessible, in sort of a peer review type way) but that companies should do this because it's actually better for them in the long run (or even the short run.) They think Software should be open only if it benefits both the users and the companies. For Stallman the decision should have nothing to do with the potential profitability of the system for major corporations. One of the major "freedoms" he wants for software is: "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." And this is the shortest way to understand his position. It seems simplistic, but I've found it really grows on you if you think about it. If your friend asks for some help with her computer, you should help her. Period. If you have copyrighted tools that can help, you should use those, or whatever means you have to help. Basically, we should always help our friends, and never let these laws get in our way. That is basic to society he thinks. And since he's dedicated his life to producing free tools (and actually has made many of the best ones) and since he has turned down millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars from the other side, he is at least practicing what he preaches. Anyway, both sides agree that "free" in free software is not about money. "Free as in speach, not beer" is the classic line of explanation. You can charge what you want, but you have to share. (An example would be RedHat. They sell for a profit the freely available linux OS. They sell it by adding value in terms of configuration and installation and service. But you could get the software for free.)
Now, however, people are dragging this kind of free software thinking over into other areas of intellectual property. Like digital music. We have all, I'd bet, always made copies of records for friends. This sort of sharing is what friends do. This is good. Now with the internet, and file sharing programs like Napster, this sharing is (supposedly) accelerating to the point where the record industries are complaining they won't be able to make ANY money. They're saying something like what you asked: shouldn't people (music artists) be compensated for their work? Napster says sure, but it's not our place to police our users (who are ripping you off.) I agree. But I fear that they don't really believe what they say. Like they are winking each time they protest. I fear that really they are happy that people use their service to pirate music, not because they believe society is better if we all share with our friends, but because they believe it will make them a boat load of money when they go public. This is my personal speculation. We'll see what they do. Maybe they'll take the money and plow it back into the amateur music scene. But my (rather long winded point) is that I would be more behind them if they had a more Richard Stallman approach. They should own up to what people use their service for, and stand behind it. It is possible to argue that we should be able to make copies and share these things. But they can't take that strong (radical?) ethical stance if they are going to make money of it themselves through owning some other piece of intellecual property.
And just to wrap up, I don't think people have any obligation to believe these things about sharing, or to give away their labor for free. But if you do, then it puts you in a position to argue for more radical change in IP laws without being a hypocrit. Napster might turn out to be acting hypocritically. I'm worried by that. That's all.
- jim 5-27-2000 7:34 pm