Napster's right - Consumers pay enough already

Companies that build computer networks should share their money with content creators

By: Robert Labossiere

  Internet users steadfastly refuse to pay additional fees for music or other content delivered via the Internet. This week the Consumer Electronics Association reported results of a survey showing that 89 percent of US Internet users download multimedia content and information and believe they should get it for free.
  Who can blame them? The Web is an extremely expensive medium already. Households with Internet access have a minimum of $1,500 in computer equipment and pay monthly charges anywhere between $15 and $50 for access alone. Add the costs of diskettes, maintenance, upgrades and new software and the yearly cost is probably closer to $3000. Let's not get into the costs of wireless.
 

Consumers aren't to blame if most of their money pays for hardware and software, not content. The same goes for radio, TV and newspapers.

  It's not the consumer's fault that most, if not all, of that money goes to pay for hardware and software and phone lines and that none, not even a miniscule portion, of those costs flow back to the people who create content. A system is at work, and we should look to the system for solutions. The question is not when consumers are going to start paying for copyrighted content but when will people who build these networks start sharing the money they make with content creators and producers.
  Look at the other entertainment systems. Radio is free. Television is free. Even newspapers cost practically nothing considering the amount of content they carry. Or rather, we pay for the delivery, the box, the cable, but not for the content. Not surprisingly, free content delivery services like Napster are hugely popular. It was recently reported reported that 3.3 million Canadians used Napster in January, the most per capita of nine countries surveyed.
 

No matter the apparent tech-stock crisis, the dollars streaming through the Internet are huge, so why doesn't the money work its way back to artists and other content producers?

  The money that keeps the content flowing comes from elsewhere, from advertising for example. In fact, it is more complicated than that. What you pay Bell for your telephone is now subsidizing CTV and Sympatico, all now part of the BCE monolith. Your movie theatre admission and Internet connection charges are subsidizing America OnLine's website thanks to the TimeWarner-AOL monopoly. To make things a little more confusing, we mandate our government to invest in content so these media systems keep functioning.
  So let us not believe that the money is not there already to pay for copyright. No matter the apparent tech-stock crisis, the dollars streaming around and through the Internet are huge. The only question is why the money doesn't seem to be working its way back to artists and other content producers.
  It is just common sense to pay for things collectively that we all benefit from equally, like access to information and entertainment on the Internet. That's why we make government pay for roads. In that way, we don't end up with toll highways that trickle off into dirt roads like you find in the U.S, and you don't go bankrupt just because you get sick one day. The fact is that the common good will be better served if copyright costs are not passed on directly to Internet consumers but are dealt with collectively, systemically.
  A US appeals court has now found Napster liable for copyright infringement and the pressure is on them to come up with a solution. Napster has for a review of the court's decision but the real battle over music on the Internet will not be over when Napster is shut down, if it ever is. If Napster goes, all that will tell us is that the music industry and the courts can't think "out of the box" which is, dare we still say, precisely what the Web is all about: it's new, it's different and yes, it will change everything, in time. One of those changes could be to reinforce our belief in systems that allow consumers to pay for things collectively instead of individually.

Robert Labossiere is a Toronto-based media specialist.

Get more/do more
The Consumer Electronics Association - www.ce.org. This is from their website: "CEA represents more than 625 U.S. companies involved in the design, development, manufacturing and distribution of audio, video, mobile electronics, communications, information technology, multimedia and accessory products, as well as related services that are sold through consumer channels. Combined, these companies account for more than $70 billion in annual sales." [This technology is what makes all that copying possible and clearly the money's not the issue. - RL]

Robert's log on copyright related issues: www.copycat.weblogs.com

The Globe and Mail is running a series about Napster, which is quite hysterical: www.globeandmail.com

The National Post is considerably more sanguine on the issue: www.nationalpost.com, search "Napster", search in particular for the excellent articles by Huston lawyer N. Stephan Kinsella and Vancouver freelancer Ilana Mercer.

Check out our animated cartoon Save Napster and music on the Net by Jim Kempkes (Requires Shockwave^®)

Posted: March 05, 2001

[ Front Page ]