t’s been almost four years since Napster founder Shawn Fanning went to trial— and lost— for facilitating the illegal practice of sharing MP3s and other digital music files over the Internet. Now that it takes a bit more time and effort to access a wide array of copyrighted sounds for free, digital music has risen from its pixelized ashes in the form of corporate commerce.

There is a variety of options facing those wishing to duplicate past discretions while ensuring that the artists get their dues. The following is an in-depth look into the new Napster, the iTunes phenomenon, subscription-based services and the future of free files on college campuses. Mmmmm… free files.

	They Bought The Law— Guess Who Won?
	By Jamie Gadette

In the aftermath of Super Bowl XXXVIII’s halftime burlesque show, paranoid media watchdogs are meticulously screening airwaves for the presence of scandalous content. Yet while millions concern themselves with Janet Jackson’s “spontaneous” disrobing, another shocking moment has gone unmentioned— and the repercussions of such silence are grave indeed. The incident in question occurred during a commercial break, when Pepsi aired the first in a line of ads promoting its latest campaign, done in collaboration with iTunes. In the spot, an adolescent girl sits in front of her computer while Green Day’s cover of “I Fought the Law” plays in the background.

“Hi, I’m one of the kids who was prosecuted for downloading music off of the Internet, and I’m here to announce that we’re still going to download music free off of the Internet— and there’s nothing anyone can do about it,” she says. The girl is smug, certain that her generation has found a way to beat the system. However, in all actuality, this precocious little punk is only selling out. She may have started out damning the man, but by acting as the voice for a new generation, the criminally prosecuted teenager is simply scratching its corporate back.

The original Napster provided an opportunity for people to bypass the cost of increasingly overpriced albums. It also broadened the market by allowing users to download rare imports, B-sides and bootlegs that would otherwise be difficult (if not impossible) to obtain. Users justified the practice by citing record industry executives as the true criminals— there was no harm in stealing when the artist was already being robbed. Whether or not such reasoning is valid, Napster at least stood for freedom and individuality. Now the original has been replaced by Napster 2.0, a bastardized version of its predecessor.

Roxio, a California-based software company specializing in CD recording and digital media software, purchased Napster in 2002 for $3.5 million. The high price tag got Roxio a high-profile name, one that consumers recognize. Unfortunately, Napster 2.0 isn’t the same product, or even a better version. The most noted difference is the fact that this service isn’t free. Users may download songs at 99 cents per track or $9.95 per album, which can then be either burned or stored on any of the three PCs contracted by Roxio.

Although there are more than 500,000 possible choices, featured songs are picked from the same pile offered by competing companies. Another drawback is the limit placed on the legally purchased music. Once users cancel their subscription, song licenses immediately expire.

There’s little that sets Napster apart from its competitors. The more popular companies are all licensed by the five major record labels, each one contributing to a disturbing trend. What began as a way for the consumer to get an edge up on corporate bulldogs has mutated into an online version of traditional record industry practices. Like Pepsi’s defiant teenage downloader, users of Napster 2.0 are being led to believe that they are somehow outsmarting the industry. Yet how smart is it to buy into a myth? Perhaps Napster 2.0 is the lesser of all evils. While its attempts to recapture the past are mired by legal hula hoops, the company hasn’t resorted to toting caffeinated water on the side.

Competitors such as Apple and Peter Gabriel’s OD2 (the Web site behind the “My Coke Music” campaign) see no problem in becoming bedfellows with Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Soft-drink companies are cashing in on piracy just like MTV profited from the creation of “TRL.” Both operate on the concept that convincing listeners of their right to choose would necessarily boost sales. However, these corporate business partners are the ones controlling which songs users may download. Where is the choice in that?
jamie@red-mag.com

	iTunes Brings Adventure Back to Digital Music, With a Price
	by Eryn Green

We all know free is better— we’ve known it since we were kids. Free food tastes better, free clothes look better and the best things in life are…

But free isn’t always the safest or most responsible road to follow. Free cheese off the ground is suspect and weird, free drugs are probably poisonous or ineffective and free music off the Web could land your granny a big fat fine and some time in the slammer if she isn’t careful.

For those net-savvy download fiends who don’t like the idea of Johnny Law knocking on their door, Steve Jobs— Apple wünder-kid, CEO and Pixar icon— has proposed a solution.

His ingenious and opportunistic iTunes Music Store offers listeners a variety of options— among them the ability to download selected tracks individually and legally— and occupies a market niche that was just begging to be filled.

But be warned: The iTunes interface is so engrossing, the staff recommendations so well-selected and the variety of music at users’ fingertips so diverse, unweary listeners might find themselves addicted to Job’s 99-cent music store like a crackhead is addicted to, um, whatever crackheads get addicted to.

With publicity photos of numerous bands staring at users from all angles, bright, hypnotizing colors and idiot-proof navigation, it is difficult to be intimidated by iTunes.

It isn’t, however, difficult to get lost in the store. For every selection, there are upwards of six listeners-who-liked-this-band-also-liked selections presented. Most of the time, the recommendations are well-informed and helpful, and with iTunes’ willingness to include independent labels and artists, not all the suggestions are Britney Spears and O-Town.

Some of the most exciting offerings made by iTunes are the sections for essentials and celebrity playlists. Users not yet versed in some of the necessary classics— Bob Dylan, Elliott Smith, acid jazz, classic country, whatever— have the ability to self-select tracks from professionally compiled playlists intended to offer a comprehensive first glance at either an artist or genre.

The celebrity playlist feature is also keyed toward music newcomers who may not necessarily know what they want when they first get into the store. With playlists belonging to a variety of popular artists like Ben Folds, Barry Manilow and The Flaming Lips, listeners have a great opportunity to get inside the CD player of an artist and, in many cases, get turned on to new music.

While the concept of paying for music again (gasp!) has some cheap-asses up in arms, the iTunes phenomena is inevitable and no intelligent person should be shocked or chagrined by it.

It’s impossible to be surprised that a big, corporate (albeit consumer-friendly, i.e., non-Microsoft) entity finally made a move on the beloved, independent piracy market.

Consider the series of events: Massive free downloading takes place around the turn of the millennium, primarily at the hands of college kids. Exclamations to the effect of “Holy s***, I can’t believe this f****** sh** is free!” ring out nationwide. The same college kids who downloaded so much free music in college are forced to graduate, learn that nothing in life is actually free, get jobs to pay the bills and grow up. Corporate figureheads, in an attempt to be cool, start listening to the advice of increasingly younger executives, many of whom just graduated from universities— bastions of file-sharing madness. A way to make money on a previously free enterprise is discovered— iTunes is born.

You make your own inferences.

It was just a matter of time before the corporate ideal of profit eclipsed the utopian ideal of sharing. At least Bill Gates doesn’t have his hands in our pockets this time.

The corporate effect isn’t visible to the untrained eye, though, which is both good and bad. The music store looks and sounds as though it is run by pretentious hipsters, when the reality is that Apple is just paying pretentious hipsters to make their business profitable.

This tragedy extends to the paychecks of the artists on iTunes as well— reportedly, a startlingly small percentage of revenue goes to the musicians, while big chunks make their way into the laps of computer and record-label execs.

Hey, kinda sounds like the non-Internet based record industry, huh?

Still, listeners ought to be glad that iTunes is as accessible and composed as it is— it could’ve turned out so much worse.
eryn@red-mag.com

	Legal File-Sharing on Campus?
	by Christian Gentry

The digital music revolution started on higher-education campuses, and free digital music access for students could again become a reality, this time a legally sound one, if certain campuses’ efforts catch on.

Some educational institutions, notably Penn State, are giving a great deal of attention to the ever-increasing and ever-tangled Web of legalities dealing with downloading music on the Internet. Due to the increased strong-arming of record industries taking legal action toward offenders of illegal downloading, many colleges and universities are taking action to avoid the astronomical damages. Of course, one of the biggest offenders of illegal downloading are university students on campuses with speedy connections.

Chief among universities that are paying attention to this issue is Penn State.
Penn State signed a contract with Napster that allows students to legally download songs, stream over 40 radio stations and view magazines without any charge. Yet it costs the students 99 cents per song if they decide to permanently own the song. Although the program is focused on reaching the whole student body, so far it extends only to the 18,000 dormitory residents.

Mike Beebel, the COO of Napster, told Kate Dean of Wired Magazine that this program will “meet the needs of students who have demonstrated a voracious appetite for online music.”

The University of Utah has yet to adapt a cooperative relationship with a digital music service because the legal problems of digital music have been a top priority. “It has been a topic of discussion. The only thing that we do is we don’t allow it [illegal digital downloading]. We have a firewall that prohibits downloading of digital material,” said Anthony White, vice president of the Associated Students of the University of Utah.

“NetCom, ISP for the University of Utah, monitors every computer through special software that keeps track of downloading traffic by monitoring the amounts of bandwidth used. When an installation of any file-sharing software takes place, the connection of the computer is disconnected. Even the dorm connections are monitored,” said Suresh Subasinghe, the webmaster system administrator for ASUU.
When asked if the U is taking any steps to allowing legal oncampus downloading like Penn State, Subasinghe said, “We are just trying to stop students from downloading illegal material.”

For questions regarding how NetCom monitors digital downloading on U computers contact them at www.netcom.utah.edu.
christian@red-mag.com

	The Freedom (and Restrictions) of Subscription-Based Services
	by Jeremy Mathews

The great problem with paying for digital music on a song-by-song basis is that the element of discovery is lost. You won’t likely discover a great album you’ve never heard by paying to download it, and the ability to buy one song at a time could theoretically decrease the number of new songs you hear. These factors make a strong case for subscription-based music services like eMusic and Rhapsody, although they also have limitations.

The indie-focused eMusic.com was one of the pioneering retailers of digital music, but it recently changed ownership and has decreased its service in order to compete with the major-label services. The original subscription service charged about $10 a month for unlimited downloads from its catalog, which consists of many independent and specialty labels, although no major labels.

The catalogue offers a nice set of songs for adventurous listeners of everything from jazz to indie rock to country to comedy. You could legally download an entire album of unrestricted MP3s (a current rarity) and burn a CD of an album just to find out if you liked it.

Unfortunately, a few months ago, after the rise of iTunes, the new plan decreased service to $10 a month for 40 songs and various other prices and limits. This is prejudiced against albums with many shorter songs instead of a few long ones and 40 songs can limit downloads to as little as one or two complete albums.

This leaves exploration-minded people with Listen.com’s Rhapsody. The service, owned by the Real Network, lets users stream a large catalogue of more than 30,000 albums with CD-quality sound at their leisure for about $10 a month. The process of streaming means that the files never save onto the hard drive, but you can listen to your heart’s content. It’s also possible to burn the songs to CD for 79 cents a track.

Rhapsody’s arrangement obviously offers a decreased range of use, but is the greatest amount of songs at an affordable price.

These subscription services offer more music for less money than the pay-by-song services, while still paying artists and labels the royalties to which they are entitled. If you don’t mind the eMusic’s limits and lack of Blink 182 or Rhapsody’s file restrictions, they could serve as the sleek vehicle for your musical odyssey.
jeremy@red-mag.com