As a pianist, I am quite in the defense of artists in the trading of mp3s over Napster, or other such networks. I would like to see the authorized trading of music, because if an artist wants to share some of their material freely, it is a great resource. Otherwise, it's close to stealing. I believe we can turn mp3 trading into a positive thing if we try hard enough- maybe with proper file identification (to give artists proper credit) and trade control.

I'd like to hear other people's views on the subject.

Will

Hello Will,

I know this is a touchy subject, but I have to agree with you. If I want to give my music away that should be my choice. But if I don't want to give my music away, that should also be my choice.

If I produced CD players instead of music and someone had a magic CD player duplicating machine, would it be ok for them to reproduce my CD players and give them away?

That said, I do think Mp3 is a great way to spread music but it needs to be controlled.

OK, anyone else have opinions on this?

Frank B.
for
Piano World

I don't think you should have to pay for MP3, or at least the way I use it. To me MP3 is basically a means to listen to the same piece played by a dozen different pianists, picking the best and buying the CD. It has it pro's in that new talented pianists will be discovered and popularized. For example since I can't get anymore proper MP3's from Napster I'm just going to buy CD's of one pianist, probably Ashkenazy or Roge or Horowitz or someone. Making all the safe choices isn't always fun.

MP3's have done more to broaden my musical horizons than all my years of concert going, study, and so forth. I regularly download and post MP3's (my own stuff and others). I have NOT stopped buying CD's. In fact, MP3's have helped me make informed decisions about which CD's, artists, and such that I want to add to my collection. I like it that I can download and get to know (risk free) an unknown artist or work. Recently, I have made the wonderful discovery of Stenhammar's piano music.

Library collections are often limited and classical radio stations follow a rather predicatable diet (not to mention you can't pause and replay). For all of RIAA's huff and puff, the stats don't show MP3's hurting their sales. And, imoe, record labels always win out over artists.

[ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: netizen ]

I think that being able to download music can
be good for the music industry. Several times
I've downloaded a song and based on hearing it, I've gone and purchased a CD by that artist. I think it can be to the benefit of the artist. Rather than look at it from a limited viewpoint, consider the possible benefit.

Steve

Yes, I do agree with all the arguments of exposure, discovering new music (I've done it too), and trying different versions. The thing that I am disappointed about is that noone consults the artists. If it was as benificial as it might seem, I'm sure many would sign on.

From a Rueters article:

Thursday June 14, 10:53 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A study released on Thursday showed that 5.5 percent of Americans aged 16 to 40 have not purchased a single music CD or cassette in the past year but have been actively downloading music from the Internet.

The survey, conducted by Edison Media Research for the radio and music trade publication Records & Radio, was one of the first attempts to quantify the impact that Internet-based music services such as Napster have had on sales of recorded music and, more generally, to show how the Internet is changing music listening habits.

Geez, a survey --paid for by a recording industry trade publication--finds that 5% of folks in the 16-to-40 age bracket downloaded mp3's and didn't buy CD's. Wow, I can already hear Hillary Rosen crying over all that money that's not going to artists!! The survey covers the past year --hmmm, that would be the same year for which the music industry posted record sales and, at the same time, cried that online piracy was "cheating" it out of even more money!! In reality, the only cheating going on is that by the recording companies of both artists and consumers. And they've done it for years.

UItimately, the recording industry cares less about profit loss than the threat new technologies (mp3, file sharing, etc) pose to its control over copyright law. An excellent account of the recording industry's manipulation of copyright can be found in Reason Magazine's review ("Copywrong: Why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hurts the public interest") of Jessia Litman's book "Digital Copyright". Check it out: http://reason.com/0107/cr.mg.copywrong.html