What is more surprising is to observe how
Napster supporters have turned the issue into a
free-speech debate and a struggle of resistance
against American corporations and capitalism at
large. Several associations have come up to
organize the struggle on campuses, such as
Students Against University Censorship (SAUC).
Some of the technical press has also sided with
them. For these groups, Napster represents a
necessary form of subversion, challenging the
goals and methods of transnational companies.
By subversion I understand literally telling
one's own "version" of the music
business and overturning the majors', refusing
to ratify, to subscribe to their logos (Serres,
10). The young have often embraced specific
musical genres because of their subversive
potential, because of the oppositional stance
they represented against their parents, society
or the law, whatever the mythical dimension of
such claims. Napster's activities appear as both
dangerous, since they are illegal, and
chivalrous, which adds to their attraction. More
than just a means to get free music, Napster has
become a righteous cause. As Daniel Nazar writes,
"the battle is longer legal, it is
moral", and rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy
adds: "It's a fantastic way to build a
minor league system of artists. It's Napster on
one side and major labels on the other. Pick
your side."(quoted by Brown).
With the struggle metaphorically and
hyperbolically described as a fight between
David and Goliath, and Fanning as a new Robin
Hood, the picking is easy. Napster has become a
paradigm of youth,4 intelligence, small scale,
independence and modernity against middle-aged,
stilted, ossified corporate executives.
How
can Napster actually subvert the music industry?
It first of all defies its omnipotence, its
quasi-monopolistic organisation (according to a
SAUC leaflet, "The RIAA isn't worried about
money, they want power"). Napster also
challenges the majors' raison d'être since it
destroys "the option value" they offer.
With Napster, consumers no longer depend on
record companies to provide them with a medium,
the CD, cassette or LP, that would give him the
option to listen to a specific music where and
when they want, something the radio or
television does not.
This
is now offered free of charge by Napster and
mp3.com, which suppresses the traditional
media's added-value. Furthermore, until now,
record companies have relied on retail outlets,
whether it be mall chains or independent stores,
for the distribution of their products. The
various attempts by majors to complement this
vertical, top-down organisation with a more
direct, horizontal one, the sale of digital
music on line, have been extremely limited (in
October 2000, BMG offered 125 titles from both
singles and albums, EMI 100, Sony 50, and
Universal only 60 tracks); the songs are slow
and difficult to download (it took several hours
to purchase an album on EMI's site) and
expensive (as much as $3.49 for one song).
Napster offers a free, ubiquitous, decentralized
and user-friendly system that so far majors
cannot beat.
It is also paving the way for a new manner of
using the Internet called P2P, peer-to-peer
files sharing (which was, incidentally, the
original principle of the Internet before it
became a mere repository for specific
data-bases).
