boycott-riaa.com - Article: BMG Entertainment Talking Business w/Napster

BMG Entertainment Talking Business w/Napster

Posted by Heidi Chambers on October 4, 2000 at 8:36 AM (printer friendly)

In a statement released earlier this week, Hank Barry said that he was concerned and frustrated over the fact that all of Napster's business proposals to record companies have so far been rejected.

"We've made serious presentations, none of which have been accepted, which makes me think that it's not about money, it's about control," said Barry, who is the CEO of Napster.

On the other hand, Kevin Conroy of BMG Entertainment is saying that Barry's comments are totally false. "Napster's statement is completely inaccurate. BMG has in fact discussed various business proposals with Napster. But Napster has never addressed the important issue of licensing nor proposed anything approaching a sound, legitimate business model."

Not to be one to back down lightly, Barry is sticking to his guns. "I stand by what I said earlier. I made several proposals to each of the five major record companies and their music publishing affiliates. Each proposal would result in payments of substantial percentages of Napster's expected revenues to compensate artists and rights holders."

In my mind, I'm not sure to be encouraged or discouraged over these recent developments. I'm glad with the fact that Napster is making business proposals and is in contact with "the big five" recording companies, but on the other hand it's not so good to have the two sides fighting, basically calling each other liars. More to come on how this unfolds.

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


napsteruser	Date: October 4, 2000 @ 8:57 AM I don't think napster should backdown just yet and start chargeing a fee. The deal has been put on the table and if the case does not go in napsters favor then they should go ahead with it. By putting this deal into effect there are inturn almost admitting they are wrong. I do indeed love the comment made by the judge about know what napster's users are doing. I definately think the RIAA needed to be put back in there place and that comment I think may have them a little unsetteled now. GO Napster!!

milladrive	Date: October 4, 2000 @ 11:45 AM I think the problem is that if Napster waits until the end of the case, then it may be too late for them. They'd be ordered to shut down, and nobody would benefit. This is what the labels are banking on. Once the labels feel like Napster has a chance to survive, they may change their tune. ...and it will be up to Napster at that point to decide whether it should snub its nose at _them_ or not. It's all about power. Money is just a bargaining tool. :)

milladrive	Date: October 4, 2000 @ 12:03 PM I agree. It needs to feel freer than that. You and I may begrudgingly send them $60 a year, but the kids won't unless their parents are benificent enough, because, after all, they'll need their own subscription(s). I feel that if they're gonna walk down this road, the solution should fall on incorporating our (the consumers) cost into our isp bill, or our telephone bill, or our taxes. I personally don't have any kids in our school system but I'm certainly paying the same taxes as anyone else. I never use the public library (I do but I'm making a point) but I pay for it. I'm not against paying for either of these things. School feels free to kids and that's the way it should be, at least until they are old enough to appreciate their education. Importantly, the questions need to speculated of how they will decide how much to pay (kickback to) the RIAA/labels, and how the RIAA/labels will decide which artists get how much.

RyanS	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 3:47 AM I would pay for a service, as long as it was reasonable, and I knew the money went to the artist. But knowing the labels in the past, they would pocket the money and not even give a cent to the artist. Here's a thought: If the kiddies can't get on, that means the service wouldn't be so clogged up with Bratney, NStink, and Backdoor Boys :)~

napsteruser	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 7:39 AM Your right but I think if Napster does go down it is the inevitable that a paid service will start whether its Napster or not. This Idea is too good for someone to let go of. Someone would end up making a lot of money and i would rather see it be Napster than the RIAA. I think that napster has a real chance I don't want to Jinx them or anything but After the way the judges gave it to the RIAA the other day it sounds a little promising.:-)

digitaldoughty	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 7:59 AM But you wouldn't need a credit card; a debit card would suffice. And certainly many teens possess those.

milladrive	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 9:27 AM Absolutely right. I kinda feel the service that sets the standards _won't_ be Napster. Their name has already been sullied too much. The service that does it will have to be embraced all around right from the getgo. And yes, it will have to be embraced by the RIAA. It's sad, but realistic. The only way to set new rules is to first play by the current rules. The only way to beat the RIAA down is to first get into their ballpark. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure it's that important _who_ the company is. It would be nice if it were Napster, but I just don't think they have the right modifications in them. In the future, we may think of Napster as the Elvis of file-sharing communities, but right now we a Beatles. :)

milladrive	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 9:45 AM dee, who are all these people paying for isp's? I just don't get it. I have never paid one cent for an isp in my life. Maybe you can tell me why "90%" (your #, not mine) of them have AOL. My friend has it, though I've _finally_ persuaded him to give it up, and though he pays for this shit, he still gets hit w/tons of pop-up ads. AOL is one of the biggest money-grubbing whores on the planet. Yeah, perhaps I'd send Napster or whomever $60 a year. I don't think it's too much to ask, but I don't think any problems would be solved. Namely, the RIAA/labels would still be in the cockpit/1st-class, the artists would still be in baggage (some in coach), and the consumers would still be forever waiting at the airport for their planes to come in. You see, the RIAA/labels don't really think there's all that much room on the planes for more bags. ;)

milladrive	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 9:59 AM That really bother you? Personally, I've never come across any of those artists simply because I've never searched for them. Nothin' gettin' clogged up as far as I can see. You guys are so resentful of these 3 artists, who I've seen named over and over again by various people here. Wow, I wish I could be resented that much. It would mean I'd be famous. ;) Btw, I agree w/the 1st paragraph. :)

RyanS	Date: October 5, 2000 @ 11:56 PM Just venting frustrations I guess. Tired of hearing them all the time. 8 year old daughter plays them to death. Just makes me wanna puke. Maybe I shouldn't have bought the CDs for her..doh! If they could change the music style a little, instead of using the same synth beats, I could tolerate it a little more.

milladrive	Date: October 6, 2000 @ 12:03 PM Heh, it's funny you say that; that's one of the things that turns me off to much of it, too. It can be somewhat difficult to make it past the production. And, of course, the media won't let us forget who they are. The beauty of it, though, is that it'll all be over soon. History has shown us that artists w/more looks than substance are at the top of their game for a relatively short time, because, among other reasons, the demography that buys most of their music grows up and moves on. Anyone remember Fabian, Bobby Sherman, Donny Osmond, Rick Springfield, or NKOTB? Looks, media attention, and good management manipulation are not necessarily a bad thing, but without substance and a loyal fan base (young girls are incredibly fickle), it won't last long. So, for us, it'll all be over soon (and along'll come another). :)