Another Napster Reading

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Here is a fine letter to Mix Magazine from songwriter Wendy Waldman that I thought is a great read, and has great insight.

From: Wendy Waldman
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:06:14 EDT
To: mixonline@gis.net
Subject: Napster

Dear Paul,

I'm a songwriter and participant in the music business, and have been for thirty years. I've had some good years such as the when I co-wrote "Save the Best For Last" with Phil Galdston and John Lind for Vanessa Williams. I've had some modest years way back in the seventies as a cultish recording artist, and some interesting times as a female producer in Nashville in the eighties--I was even interviewed in this wonderful magazine. I've also had some stupendously hard times when nobody wanted anything I had to offer for any number of reasons. This business of music, or this path, if you like, certainly has its ups and downs.

My engineer Michael Boshears and I are both fans of your column and want to thank you for the excellent writing you offer in this magazine. I am distressed as I read your article on Napster in that there are some truly major omissions in your presentation, which I am certain are unintentional, but which reflect many people's tendency to overlook these most critical and least attended issues.

In general, the Napster argument has been framed as "us versus the big guys," and it's always about the record companies and the artists, signed or unsigned, who suffer at the hands of the labels. On this point I totally agree, and I work a great deal in the field of Americana music where the money is low but the creative freedom is marvelous, and it's the world you describe as you outline the way artists can make a better living working with the internet and going the independent route.

All that being said, I noted with alarm that you mentioned the word "SONGWRITER" only once in your entire article, and that was in reference to McGuinn. You made absolutely no mention of music publishing and no mention whatsoever of the concept of intellectual property.

People don't realize that the ones who truly stand to be hurt the most are in fact the songwriters--who aren't all necessarily artists. Nobody talks about the fact that there are many, many people who write songs for a living, day after day, and maybe get lucky enough to get a publishing deal, or a few songs recorded, and for whom the publishing and performance royalties are the only financial reward they will ever receive. Contrary to the myths about the glamorous lives of songwriters as you well know, most of them are in a low- to low-middle-income bracket, living constantly from publishing deal to publishing deal if they're lucky, and certainly not raking in the dough. Our industry leans with at least one leg on the unheralded work of songwriters, and has since the days of Irving Berlin and before.

While I applaud and want to participate in the liberation of artists from the yoke of the traditional labels, I fear greatly that Napster is educating a new generation of listeners to believe that music is free, and shouldn't be paid for at all. This will, without a doubt, put many songwriters out of business, and as songwriters, you and I don't need Hilary Rosen to demonstrate that for us. I've seen hundreds of files of my songs online for which I wasn't paid even a penny, and I stare at my rent and grocery bill every month, wondering if I can stay in the business of writing songs if I can't earn a living at it. The answer is of course that there's no way. And there are many more songwriters out there who aren't necessarily going to get in the van and hit the road as artists, because that's not what they do. They're writers. Americans already don't understand that writers have to eat, too, and that rather than manufacture tables or sell cars or own Internet companies, they deal in ideas--ideas are the only product writers have to offer, and slowly, our culture is turning to the notion that people don't need to be compensated if they deal in the world of ideas.

We make a few pennies when our tune is played on the radio. Those pennies are divided into the tiniest fractions between other writers, publishers, sometimes the artists themselves, sometimes managers—at any rate, we earn our living in pennies, hoping to come across some of the good years. We don't get paid until a year after the song has been on the radio. Most songwriters have families and have worked very hard to get to the point where people in the industry will even listen to their stuff. We make a few pennies when a CD is sold and those pennies are again split into fractions. Needless to say, with Napster, we get paid nothing. How interesting that you point out that Napster shows no income yet but all of its investors must be counting on making a lot of money once the question of intellectual property is out of the way. All I can say is, yeah, they won't have to pay the people who write the songs or produce the records, and that will save them a bundle, in their minds.

And they must be thrilled at the same time that so many people have fallen to the bait of the populist revolution this is supposed to represent. As long as the argument continues to rage about the bad record companies and no one really looks at the "real problem", which is of course whether our culture is going to honor the notion of intellectual property as it does all other kinds of business and personal property, these guys have everyone in their pockets. The kids are too young to get it, but you as a songwriter and musician should be able to see this for what it is. To use The Nation's definition of copyright as you did is ironic, considering The Nation is a great thought-provoking forum especially geared to the notion of ideas—and yet no mention of the protection of intellectual property exists in that definition. Copyright law is also there to protect the holder of the copyright from having his or her work taken without consent. You do a disservice to omit the fact for your readers that there are two copyrights in every work of art: the performance or recording itself, and the copyright belonging to the person who wrote the work. That person is going to be out of work very soon if Napster has its way and is able to co-opt intelligent, well-meaning but poorly-informed people.

On that topic, I want to say, finally, that the populist anti-Metallica rhetoric is not well thought-out, nor well-informed. What Lars Ulrich said very clearly was simply that he wasn't given a choice as to whether he wished to be posted on Napster. No one, including Metallica, argues the value of the Internet for artists, beginning and otherwise, who want to reach people in that way. However as he pointed out so eloquently, those artists elect to be on Napster. Metallica wasn't asked, and they have a right to not only be asked but to decline if they so desire. And that should be respected, without further judgment on Metallica's fitness for cultural icon-hood.

I also was not asked if I wanted my songs posted on the Internet, but there are hundreds of files of them out there, and I can assure you, I'm not only not being paid but I, along with every other writer in the business is being put in jeopardy because people don't understand the real issues. I think that Metallica's position is very courageous and very lonely and I applaud them for stepping up to the plate and defending intellectual property and the right to choose if one wants to be posted or not. This has nothing to do with their encouragement of taping at their shows as that was their choice. Anything short of that is theft. As Americans, we would never allow someone to steal our gear, our money, our homes—and yet, we are losing the notion that writers have the same rights with regard to that which they make, and by which they earn a living, as others do in this country.

Thank you for your patience with my long letter.

Yours truly,

Wendy Waldman

Dave Van Allen · From: Doylestown, PA , US , Earth

well stated.

theft is theft.

"Thou Shalt not steal"

can it get any simpler?

Dan Tyack · From: Olympia, WA USA

That was a great letter, I'm going to have to go out and buy some Wendy Waldman albums to show some support.

It is amazing to me the amount of self delusion that some people have about ripping off music on the internet, people who otherwise are fine, moral people, but who find some justification for stealing.

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com

erik · Posted 14 Dec 2000 3:14 pm

I like her song and production of Momma's Never Seen Those Eyes by The Forrester Sisters - which i believe can not be purchased today in any collection.

erik · Posted 14 Dec 2000 3:24 pm

I have a computer but it is not hooked to the internet. I wouldn't have much desire to use Napster unless i was looking for a song that can't be purchased.

I have to honestly say that i buy more CDs because of the internet and because i can preview songs using Mpeg, or Real Audio with my WebTV. It has also helped me avoid purchasing a 'dog'.

erik · Posted 14 Dec 2000 4:45 pm

McVey, i don't think i ever did that because i thought it was dishonest. And i wouldn't let friends borrow my stuff for that purpose. What i do do is sometimes record a custom tape from numerous sources for listening in the car.

Now that the Napster monster is out of the bag, yet again, here on the forum, i will give this opinion: The only way for record labels to convince people that exchaging music files (songs) without paying for them is wrong is to make available for download on the internet EVERY song ever recorded, and charge a modest per song fee.

Graham · From: Marmora, Ontario, Canada

Erik:
Just to satisfy my curiosity, if your computer is NOT hooked up to the internet, how do you post on the Forum??

------------------
Rebel™
ICQ 614585
http://users.interlinks.net/rebel/steel/steel.html

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

In another thread, many steelers comment on working for nothing (or next to nothing). Now we hear from songwriters who think they should be paid for every word. (Am I the only one who sees a little disparity here?) As in any form of the Arts, only 1 in 1,000 ever makes a decent living. When you choose to be an artist, any kind of artist; or when you choose to start in any other business, no one guarantees you will succeed. And, along the same lines, no one guarantees that your "product" will not be usurped, stolen, or supplanted by something else.

Computers, in one way or another put many people out of a job, but they also create jobs for many more. Big firms, that used to have hundreds of accounting people, are now run by a a dozen or two. Now that every professional has a PC, secretaries are being pushed out. E-mail is hurting the postman. And all over our country, people are having to change careers due to an invasion of technology. This isn't anything new, by the way. The same thing happened when photography, and the automobile, and the airplane came along. People who were trying to earn a living had to adapt...or starve.

It seems we have a dilemma here. As artists, we either get ripped off by big recording companies, or we pay 5 to 10 grand to a local outfit, and have 500 CDs produced...knowing we probably will never break even, and knowing that will have very limited distribution...and no chance at the proverbial "brass ring". (The public also gets ripped off when they pay $15 for a mass-produced CD that ought to cost no more than $5.)

Maybe "Napster" isn't the answer, but I'm sure not happy with the "system" we have as it is now. One thing I'm sure of though, if enough people demand something like Napster, so that they can get good music for a reasonable price, there will be no stopping it.

Bob Hoffnar · From: Austin, Tx

I have noticed a split in the Napster debate with people I run into around NYC.

So far I have yet to meet or talk to one person that actually makes a living from music that likes Napster. Absolutly every musician I know that is willing to go through the crap of trying to survive off there talent and skills finds Napster to be nothing more than another scum bag trying not to pay them.

For you guys that think that the anti napster crowd just doesn't understand how things work in the modern world try giving up your day job and see what it is really like trying to survive from your art. You guys remind me of 15 year olds that lie about how they aren't virgins anymore to each other and then feel free to prognosticate about how to deal with women.

Bob

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

While we're making "moral judgements" about people here, let me ask a question...

"Has ANYONE here who has ever gotten paid for performing somebody else's material in public always paid the people who actually wrote the songs???"

Well...I'm waiting.............

Still waiting............

I didn't think so!

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

You didn't wait very long for an answer, Donny.

When copyrighted music is played in a restaurant or bar, the responsibility for paying the owner of the copyright rests not with the musician, but rather with the club owner. Club owners pay ASCAP and BMI for this.

Congress recently amended the copyright laws, and the restaurant lobby tried to get this music without paying. I think they lost. I really should know this stuff since I have annual income in double figures from BMI.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Earnest, let's be earnest!

How many clubowners actually keep a log of all the songs played in their bars or restaurants, and how many times they're played? Hmmmmmmm, didn't think so! (Of the couple of hundred I've played in, I guarantee not one does!) Could this be the reason you have an annual income in the "double digits"?

Actually, my point was that stealing goes on EVERYWHERE! Yes, yes, I know that doesn't make it right, but a person shouldn't shouldn't attack an idea like Napster, and then say "could you make me a tape of so-and-so", or "do you have the words to so-and-so..."

Actually, I don't even use Napster. I could care less about the thing. I'm only trying to point out the hypocrisy I see here.

And when someone says "I can't make a living writing songs, or playing music"...tell them to blame the whole world, and not just one entity. It didn't take me very long to learn that it's hard to make a good living playing music. But then, some people are just slow learners.

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that it's the club owners' responsibility to keep a log of all the music played in their establishments. They just pay a flat fee that depeneds on things like the size of the place. The performance rights organizations decide how to divide the money between the copyright holders.

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

I have a question here, that may make a lot of song-writers really upset !!!

Why should you get paid "EACH" and "EVERY" time a song is played on radio or done by a band ??

First, You were paid for the material when you first put it out to the company,firm,or whatever outfit you use for distrubution.

Second, Most of this material has been derived (by you) from someone elses actions,misfortunes,loves,etc,etc..... Are you paying them to let you tell the world of their events in life ???

Now, lets take my professional life into account here.....

I fix things for a living. I have worked in the private industrial sect,the public industrial sect, and goverment sect. I get paid once a week (not much, but I do get paid) to FIX things. Now, if I fixed a BIG water pump last week\month\year and it is still pumping water this week, Should\do I get paid for each gallon of water it pumps now ? DO you pay your car machanic a bit each week just because he fixed your brakes 6 months ago and they still work good now??

The answer is a big resounding "NO".....

I was paid at the time of services rendered for that paticular job\song. So was the Machanic. Now, in order to receive another paycheck the next week, I have to go out there and fix something else.

We have "Songwriters" out there sitting in cubicals, cranking out songs by the thousands,(Most of em, not even understandable by the average person due to the mixed content of the passage) and are paid to do this, they are paid according to the number of "POEMS" that is produced EACH week.

As Songwriters\Artist\Performers\Guitar pickers\Repairmen\lineworkers are paid for their services at the time of performance, Why should they keep on being paid year after year (admittly, small amounts) for something they have already receive payment for ????

All in all, this is NOT my own personal thoughts in this matter, as I play gigs and such,receiveing monies for my performances.

This line of thinking comes from talking with and to several John Doe citizens, who copy tapes\CD's,use "Napster", and in general feel that posession is all that counts. How they aquired the material isn't relevent. This is why there will allways be discord in the music field !!

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Well Earnest, I hope you got my point. As anyone can see, with that sort of "arrangement" controling who gets what, a lot of people are coming out on the short end of the stick! A lot of us are playing Owens, Price, and Tillis songs, and Shania and Garth are probably getting their money. The system is seriously flawed when people aren't reimbursed in a fair manner.

I would like to see a system whereby the writer gets paid directly when a song of theirs' gets recorded. As it is now, you pay your .075 per copy to some "fat cat" who probably keeps 95%, and sends the writer something when he gets around to it...if they're famous. If they're not, they probably never see any of the money.

As far as "live performance" royalties, you might as well do away with them (except where regional or national distribution, e.g., on TV is involved). There's no way to control that fairly (commensurate the proper people).

In short, the whole system is crap. We're long overdue for changes, and regulation (in the form of legislation) in this multi-billion-dollar industry. If it takes something on the internet to come along and "shake things up" so that more people find out what's going on, then so be it.

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

Bob Hoffnar · From: Austin, Tx

McVey:

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Donny,

"

I would like to see a system whereby the writer gets paid directly when a song of theirs'
gets recorded. As it is now, you pay your .075 per copy to some "fat cat" who probably
keeps 95%, and sends the writer something when he gets around to it...if they're famous.
If they're not, they probably never see any of the money."

You should understand the publishing business before you make statements like that. The .075 rate is determined by law. Those mechanicals are paid to the publisher, who may or not be the writer. The publisher is bound by lay to pay at least 50% of the income to the writer. If is a writer/publisher, he keeps it all. Labels (what you call the fat cats), are required to account quarterly for those payments. The label I work for distributes checks to hundreds of writers every quarter like clockwork. As do 99% of legitimate labels. (There are crooks everywhere, in every business). All Performance Royalties ie BMI, ASCAP and SECAC, are distributed directly to the writers.

As for getting paid everytime it is used,why not. Unless you sign a "work for hire" deal, it is my copyright. Should Steven King not get paid for every book that get sold? If you own that water pump company, should I be able to duplicate it and sell it and not pay you?? What happens (and it's coming) about Napsters for film, videos, Sega games and software?

And the restuarants did win a bit on the music for background thing. They tried to say it is just background music, and not worthy of being paid for. Well, the little sprig of parsley on the steak is just an incidental, but no one expects the produce company to give it to them for free. If the music is that incidental, just turn it off. But they are not willing to do that. They did ram through a reduction in the rates, which will cost professional writers a 25% loss in income this year.

I think one of the saddest things about this is the lack of respect for intellectual copyright. So much of our heritage comes from the arts, including books, art, and yes, music. When it can all be taken for free, where is the incentive. I support the writers as much as I can, including paying royalties on time, as well as being a state level lobbyist for ASCAP.

By the way, I have no problem with Napster if the ARTIST and/or the WRITER give their permission. This has nothing to do with artists who put their own music up for free distribution--that's their call. Putting a song up for free to promote a record is great if all all in agreement. But anything less than that is just blatant theft in my book.

Bill Crook · From: Goodlettsville, TN , Spending my kid's inheritance

erik · Posted 17 Dec 2000 1:00 pm

John,
The law is the law, for sure. However, the copyright laws are constructed and modified without the input of the public(ding-ding-ding!!!). One can have a unending philosophical debate on who should own what and how long they should own it. Whatever happened to counting your blessings for what you have instead of complaining about the nickles and dimes you don't have?

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

John, I am glad your own experience in the music business is devoid of any dishonesty on the part of someone else. I don't claim to know everything about the music business. Most of what I know about the music business is what I hear and read. And the business is replete with people who have written or sung songs, hit songs, only to have the money (or a good portion of it) disappear. Not hundreds, but thousands claim they were ripped off (and this was long before computers) by someone. Maybe it was the labels, maybe it was the publisher, and maybe it was their agent. Whoever did it, it wasn't right. And, these days, this type of thing shouldn't happen. But, evidently it still does.

Also, I never claimed that writing, or playing wasn't a real job. But, I do liken it to sports, or acting; inasmuch as very few who attempt it really do quite well financially. For every Tiger woods, or Tom Hanks, there are thousands living hand-to-mouth trying to make it big in the same field. And for every Tom T. Hall, or Willie Nelson, there are thousands of writers who will never make a decent living. But, let's not place all the blame on computers and the people who use (or abuse) them.

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Hey Donny,

You are absolutely right about the horror stories you have heard about people getting ripped off. But times have changed a lot since then. There is a wealth of information available in print and on the net, so anyone who gets into a bad contract these days is pretty dumb. Also, the laws are better these days.

And speaking of the laws, erik, there IS public input on these--they are passed by Congress. I spend many an hour each year lobbying my Representitives and Senators on the behalf of intellectual copyright, as do others such as the resturant association that got changes hammered through this past few years.

I certainly do not place all the blame on computers and those who use them, but theft is theft. If you take my song or performance without my permission, what else can you call it?

erik · Posted 18 Dec 2000 2:20 am

John,
You only reinforce my point. The laws are agreed upon by a select few. It is not Legislators that are exchanging music files.