Sam Rosenthal's views on MP3.com + Napster

"I don't agree with the whole concept that people will steal music from you and never buy music again." - Sam Rosenthal, March 2, 2001

This page is in reverse chronological order; as this topic is ever-evolving, I thought it best that you read the newest stuff first.

"I asked how many of them 'bought music legally.' No more that 15-20% indicated that they bought music legally. I asked how many of them 'stole music' ? 100%. And all but a couple indicated that a majority of their music was stolen."

Sam comments: Ugh. That does NOT bode well for us artists who are trying to make a living off music. Music "fans" seem to miss an important point. The people who create music have to pay their rent and their check when they eat dinner. We don't create art on an empty stomach. We cannot eat a meal and then evade paying for it, like these folks do with their stolen music. Every CD an indie label sells goes to paying the cost of making that CD and the artist who created the music. There's not a lot of cream being skimmed off and put in the pocket of "the man." If you like the music you are hearing, you should be paying for it. People don't get it, do they? There's gonna be less art in the future, if there's no money going to the artists today. The government doesn't foot the bill. The artist does. Hey grads, put a little money towards the band. In New York, two drinks costs far more than one CD.... ya know what I am saying?

I read a pretty disturbing article in the New York Times this week, here are two excerpts from it:

Aram Sinnreich, a media industry consultant at Radar Research in Los Angeles, said the CD format, introduced in the United States 24 years ago, is in its death throes. "Everyone in the industry thinks of this Christmas as the last big holiday season for CD sales," Mr. Sinnreich said, "and then everything goes kaput."

But very few albums have gained traction. And that is compounded by the industry's core structural problem: Its main product is widely available free. More than half of all music acquired by fans last year came from unpaid sources including Internet file sharing and CD burning, according to the market research company NPD Group. The "social" ripping and burning of CDs among friends - which takes place offline and almost entirely out of reach of industry policing efforts - accounted for 37 percent of all music consumption, more than file-sharing, NPD said.

Now, first off, I don't think the CD is dead after Christmas. I think that is industry B.S. What's interesting about the statement is that the majors are actually thinking that way.

However, it is scary to think that half of all music acquired by listeners is done "illegally." My issue here is that I like to eat, Sasha likes to eat, Voltaire and Steve Roach like to eat.... And we all have the rent to pay. So what is it in a fan's ethics that makes them feel music from an artist they enjoy is a commodity they can have for free? Do they think it's ok to pop into the local bodega and rip off a couple of sandwiches and a soda? Certainly not. So why is it OK to steal from somebody who they actually say they "like?"

It's an ethical issue. It's not gonna work for the R.I.A.A. to sue a few fans. Somehow, listeners need to be taught the intrinsic value of artistic creation. And that people making art deserve to be paid for it. Being a dad myself, I do see the need for kids to have more lessons in ethics. It's not about "morals from God" - it's about doing right unto others (but I digress).

I have always been Pro-Digital. I was Pro-Napster back in the day, because it was a really great way for people to hear Projekt's music. I am not yet ready to admit, "I was wrong," because I think Napster served a purpose. The same sort of purpose that net-radio serves. It allows people to hear music. The same purpose that YouTube serves. It allows people to see musicians performing.

"I don't agree with the whole concept that people will steal music from you and never buy music again." - Sam Rosenthal, March 2, 2001

Back then, I wasn?t really thinking that people would turn free into the new normal, in music acquisition. Napster was the wild west, before the Sheriff came in to settle things down. I was never advocating that getting music illegally was a good replacement to buying music. I thought it was a way for people to hear music, and a temporary step on the way to people purchasing digital files (there were no real download services back then). What I didn't expect, back in the days of Napster, was that the majors would be so useless at getting a digital service operational. It took Apple, of all people, to do that, many years late.

The people who are reading this are most probably in the "buyer" category, anyway. If I hear music I like, I buy it..

You guys are Buyers. You read the Projekt list and visit our webstore because you're still a fanatic for the physical object. We need you.... 50% of all music is obtained illegally!?! That is incredibly frightening. So far, Projekt.com has weathered the storm. But we still need you! Keep buying Projekt CDs. Keep supporting artists. We need you, every day and every purchase. If you see your friends burning music, tell them who is being hurt. Tell them "that's not cool!" Let them know their favorite artist actually NEEDs those sales to pay their bills. Millionaires, we are not!

Kristen of Throwing Muses talks about Pirating / MP3s Her September 19, 2005 Blog was forwarded to me by Projekt fan Julia who wrote: "Knowing how much this whole 'music piracy' thing grates on your nerves, I thought that you would be interested to read this entry from Kristin Hersh's blog. It got me thinking of you. Hope you enjoy it."

You know, I agree with "File sharing is constructive, not destructive," but there are limits to my agreement. There seems to be a lot of contradictions within her blog - her argument seems to be music never should have become a business, anyway, so why worry about being traded: share your art! The bottom line for me is that it's great for people to HEAR my music with a free MP3, but I don't want them trading the whole album. I'd like them to buy my album (and Voltaire's album and Unto Ashes' album), because I personally enjoy eating and paying for my health insurance. Selling music is 100% how I earn my income, thus encouraging fans to trade (and not buy) sends a signal that I don't need money to survive. And good for you, Kristin, if you found a source of income that allows you to live without selling records. But for us at Projekt, being able to work full time on our art would be ideal. Kristen writes "It remains way more important to me that my music be heard than bought." Hmmm. I like my music getting heard, too; but more important than that is eating. And Sasha and I stop eating, when people stop buying CDs.

So I just cannot blindly agree with all of it, though I agree with most of it...

September 15 2003 Article at PCWorld.com | "We don't condone copyright infringement, but it's time for the RIAA's winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the munchkins alone," Eisgrau says in a statement. P2P United consists of six of the largest file-sharing Web sites, including Grokster, StreamCast Networks (which owns Kazaa), and BearShare.

Sam writes: "Hi. Have you heard about the RIAA (the lobbying arm of the major labels) planning to sue music downloaders to the tune of $100,000 per song? I find this behavoir absolutely absurd. You are my fans, my customers, my lifeblood! Your support of Projekt's artists is what keeps us housed and fed. Only arrogant, misguided, backwards-thinking major label idiots sue their audience for wanting to share music. But ah, there is the catch. They don't want you to hear music; they want you to buy without thinking. They want drones, not music fans! That's not our attitude here at Projekt. We're humble. We realize your hurtin' in the current economy. We realize that digital downloads are a way to hear artists so you can discover if their CD is something you feel is worth purchasing. We realize you like music with heart and soul, and nice packaging as well. And that's what Projekt is all about. I've been running this label for twenty years (since I was a wee lad); now Lisa and I have our own wee little one (Sasha turned a year old a few days ago). Every time we print out orders, I thank you for putting food on the table, helping us pay our bills, and keeping Shea employed (she's the one filling your orders and answering your email). Projekt welcomes you to trade files of our music. Spread the word to your friends, let them know about the great music from our artists. You are sharing the music you love. The more people who hear and care about Projekt music, the more orders we get and the more CDs end up in your hands. That's what the music business used to be about: people caring about music. Not corporations suing their audience to make them stop listening..... Jeez! "

Music Labels Threaten to Sue Net Users
Story here
The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans Wednesday for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.

Everyone seems to want me to rant about the latest RIAA stupidity... Sigh. I just can't get fired up about the death rattle of the dinosaurs. Major labels are so stuck in their 1970s model of how the music business should run, that rather than adapt, they feel suing their customers is the solution. It's absurd and idiotic. Just like the dinosaurs, the RIAA and the major labels they represent will die out if they don't evolve. If they released quality music, lowered prices a bit, and made CDs more appealing ("value added!")... things would be better. Also, if they realized our country is in the middle of a massive depression, they'd understand that people don't have the disposable income they had a few years ago (when are they gonna start blaming W, rather than internet trading? Do people out of work - or on the brink of losing their job - really need to buy the new Madonna album?). Whatever. Sue a few more of your customers. Drive them even further away. Fall over and die. That's all fine by me! RIAA. Major Labels? Who needs 'em!?
: )

Janis Ian on filesharing (then chose "THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW")
I was pleased to see how much of her article reflects what I've been saying for the last year or two... "Free exposure is practically a thing of the past for entertainers. Getting your record played at radio costs more money than most of us dream of ever earning. Free downloading gives a chance to every do-it-yourselfer out there. Every act that can't get signed to a major, for whatever reason, can reach literally millions of new listeners, enticing them to buy the CD and come to the concerts. Where else can a new act, or one that doesn't have a label deal, get that kind of exposure?"

A New Tactic in the Download War: Spoofing
In recent weeks, scads of "spoof" files have been anonymously posted to the hugely popular sites where music fans illegally trade songs online. Spoofs are typically nothing more than repetitive loops or snippets filled with crackle and hiss, and thousands are now unwittingly downloaded every day from file-sharing services, like Kazaa and Morpheus, that sprang up after Napster's demise. Record labels are reluctant to discuss spoofing, but their trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America, has called it a legitimate way to combat piracy. And at least one company acknowledges that it has been hired to distribute spoofs, although it won't say by whom.

Fan Question hi sam. i know you've been a huge proponent of mp3 sharing places like napster/audiogalaxy/etc. would you be able to expand a little for me on why they are beneficial to you? there's a HUGE fight/debate on the morality of mp3 sharing on my DJ list right now - i thought it would be cool to get a label owner's perspective on it. - Batty, OH..

Batty...american radio sucks. it does not really play indie music and generally speaking, does not play projekt. "hearing is believing" and when people can hear bands they are curious about, they are more likely to plunk down their $16 to buy the cd. napster / audiogalaxy / etc allows people to hear the music. if they like the band, they buy the cd. if they don't, they erase the file. there really is *no* evidence that trading files hurts music. no more so then there was evidence in the 70s and 80s that "home taping kills music" (yet the RIAA was able to force a blank tape tax through congress, making the "music biz" [one of] the only industries in america that is benefitted by a tax on citizens). all this stuff about MP3 trading is a big smoke screen created by the RIAA lawyers to mask the fact that the majority of the music the majors are releasing sucks independent people such as yourself discussing this matter is just a case of falling under their spell.

Fan Comment Sam, i thought of you while watching the grammy awards and the president going on a long rant about stealing music.... now, I'm not for stealing work either, but when he said pirates are taking money out of the artist pockets, i actually spoke to the tv and said 'no, they are taking money out of the labels' pocket... with those contracts, the musicians get $1.50 a CD.' - Stu, AZ

Ha, Stu! If only major label artists were lucky enough to earn $1.50 a cd! It's more likely that they earn NEGATIVE $1.50 a cd, IE: they never are gonna see a penny of that $18.98 list price!!! Here's a link to something Steve Albini wrote about this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html.

People have asked my opinion on whatever the Grammys did to keep MP3.com out of the event. I didn't watch and I don't have time to research this matter, more than to know something about their ad being banned and somebody bad-mouthing them at the ceremony. Face it, it all comes down to this:

We all know that the Grammy Awards aren't about talent. They are about capitalism. They are about which crappy artist sold the most albums to people with no taste in music.... and maybe here or there the judges throw a bone to someone with talent. Why bother watching a show that celebrates what sucks the most about music?

Ok, that said, it's all about Greed. The major labels don't care about pirates stealing money from their artists. They care about pirates stealing money from their own fat paychecks. I thought it was intensely funny when I read recently that many Major Label artists (including Beck) have cease and desist orders against their own record labels, requiring that the labels stop offering their music through the new download services. Why? First, the Major labels don't have contracts with many of their artists to distribute music this way. Second, because the artists realized that under the current scheme, their songs would need to be downloaded about 20 times before they see a penny (Serious!). They realized that the REAL NAPSTER wasn't ripping them off *much* more than their own labels intend to rip them off.

Now, about the Grammys' anti-MP3 stance. That's because they have some dumbass new format that they want suckers to buy into, because it will further pad out their wallets. They are against the MP3 format because they don't own it and they won't profit (as much) from it. Those Greedy weasles....

Ok, I haven't had a lot of time to think about this and write this in more elaborate detail. This is basically where I stand. The R.I.A.A. are a bunch of greedy weasles. The Major labels are a bunch of greedy weasles. The Grammy Awards are not about art. Why are ya even watching them, anyway? Next year why don't you rent "Aguirre: the wrath of god" or that nice 3-DVD "Brazil" box-set instead!?!
; )

Update on May 25, 2001
what the folks at universal and bertelsmann don't understand...

Fan Comment sam, thanks for mentioning mira in your list. i checked them out at mp3.com and thought they were incredible. i immediately purchased both of their albums. thanks! - jon.

This is exactly what the new buyers of Napster and MP3.com don't understand. People are *not* trading MP3 files because they want to short-circuit the record industry . . . fans are trading files because they want to discover new music. While the major labels cut back their support for new artists, and try to force feed you the latest boy band, the real fans of music are venturing to the digital underground in search of what they crave: new and interesting bands.

When are the major labels gonna wake up and realize what the digital revolution *could* be doing for their artists?

They are too busy killing all the new tools, because they are afraid of them. Now both of the prominant internet MP3 sources have been purchased by Major Labels. Just give them a little time to destroy them. Oh wait, one is already dead! If any of you have been to Napster recently, you must have noticed what a wasteland it is. Will all the new strict filters, nothing is available for trade anymore.

I think this is really funny, actually. Bertelsman bought the Napster "Brand Name" and have immediately destroyed that name. Do you think anyone is gonna care about Napster, when it is a subscription download company? Ha! That would be like somebody buying Projekt, kicking all the bands off the label, signing a bunch of funk acts, and then thinking the old fans will be loyal (Ok, Bret maybe.... but most of you won't be buying the Projekt Funk Posse anytime soon!). They don't understand that internet loyalty lasts about as long as the first mistake you make, then the shoppers go somewhere else offering the same service (at a similar or better price!). So, Bertlesman has killed Napster. How long will it be till Universal kills MP3.Com? For now, it's still a great source for fans (like Jon above) to discover Projekt artists.... but I'm sure the clock is ticking till it is converted to a pay-to-play subscription download service, in league with Satan and the R.I.A.A.

The record industry's old world thinking has got to go! "Let's come in and give the Indians religion and if they don't accept it, we'll kill them!" They fail to realize they cannot kill people's interest in discovering music. No matter how hard they are going to try to reshape your tastes to WANT to pay them to download that new single from N'Sync....

Update on May 21, 2001 | Well, I bet Matthew Monfort is pleased as punch. The majors have destroyed Napster, and nobody can access his music for free anymore. Personally, I think that - and the recent purchase of MP3.com by Universal - could signal the beginning of the end of independent artists' ability to promote their music for free on the internet. The exchange of MP3s was an amazing tool for indie promotion, but too many people couldn't see the forest for the trees, and too many indies were tricked by the hype piped out by the R.I.A.A. Soon we'll be PAYING the major labels to let our fans hear our music for free, while those same labels resume their stranglehold on the public's taste music. Oh, I hear another boyband being born..... blarghhhhhh!

Letter to the Editor Deptartment
A story found on-line, with Sam's letter to the writer below.

Call to Expand Napster Lawsuit
Chronicle Staff Report
Thursday, January 18, 2001
�2001 San Francisco Chronicle

A San Francisco attorney is asking a judge to grant class-action status to up to 60,000 independent musicians whose work has been traded without consent by users of the popular Napster file-sharing program.

Hannah Bentley, founder of a small San Francisco organization called the Internet Lawyers' Group and herself an independent musician, filed the motion Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

In effect, the motion, if granted, would expand the roster of plaintiffs in a copyright infringement suit that was filed against Napster in July 2000 by Casanova Records, an independent hip-hop label in Falls Church, Va.

One artist seeking class-action status is Matthew Monfort, leader of the Kentfield world fusion band Ancient Future. In a news release, Montfort said Napster's online music sharing program "damages the careers and economic viability of independent musicians, for whom every CD sale is crucial to survival."

I run Projekt Records, an independent label out of NYC. I am surprised by people like Mr. Monfort and Ms. Bentley, who are completely behind the times with their perception that Napster "damages the careers and economic viability of independent musicians."

They are living in an ancient paradigm (reinforced by the scamsters at R.I.A.A.).

Napster is one of the BEST promotional tools to come along for independent bands like Ancient Future or my own band, Black Tape For A Blue Girl. Hundreds of people a day are now discovering my music, which wasn't possible before Napster. Fans now bypass the good ole boy system (payola) that rules radio, chain stores and print and go directly to the music (via Napster, and - if Mr. Monfort was wise - MP3.com as well). The audience doesn't need filters keeping them from music, they want direct access.

I see Napster (and MP3.com) as amazing promotional tools for indie artists; and these tools work! I have been contacted by hundreds of fans who first heard my music on Napster. Napster allows music listeners a way to discover new artists, without having to plunk down $17. If they like what they hear, they *will* go out and buy the CD. If they don't, they won't. THAT is where the true decision lies. It's not technology that will damage economic viability, Mr. Monfort, but the quality of the music the artist records.

Perhaps these lawsuits against Napster are filed by people tricked by the R.I.A.A. into attacking the thing that connects them to a new audience? In the end, this strategy benefits the major labels, whose goal is to shut off your ability to discover non-major artists. A listener turning on to new music reinforces the major's fear that the audience will stop accepting the pablum they've been spoon fed for years.

With independent artists attacking Napster, it's easy for people to lose sight of where the real enemy lies. Mr. Monfort and Ms. Bentley are assisting the major labels in their dirty work, rather than realizing the potential of these new technologies.