Things You Should Never Mention at a Dinner Party

There is an old cliche that says that there are three things you should never mention at a dinner party. You should never talk about politics, sex, or money. True enough; however, the individual who invented that rule never tried to have dinner over a discussion about downloading music online. For my dinner, I invited the Napster press release writer, Chris Whitten, Lisa M. Bowman from ZDNet, and Patricia Jacbus from CNET. Chris has first hand knowledge about the Napster case, so he adds an interesting perspective to the group. Lisa brings the liberal "poor college kids" view to the table, which conflicts nicely with Patricia’s very legal, factual stance on the case.

I served the only thing a cheap person like I am would serve. I had one of those party trays from Chic-fil-a catered. Everyone likes that place. To add some semblance of class I picked up a vegetable platter from Publix. Maybe a fruit and cheese platter too, but I’m not sure how much all of this is. While there, I bought several bottles of cheap, yet enjoyable wine. This serves two very important purposes: making my guest think the food tastes good and people who have been drinking are far more interesting than sober people are. Under the influence of alcohol, my guests would hopefully be encouraged to have a very heated argument and give me something interesting to write about.

They sat wherever they wanted to. I like circular tables with glass tops best so if I had a table at all everyone would be in a nice circle to start with. They make for better conversations and you can't stick gum under them without someone noticing immediately. At my imaginary table everyone could see each other easily and being that it’s a smaller table, everyone was close to one another. No decorative center pieces in the middle due to the fact that the table would more than likely be crowded with food and it’s annoying to talk around an oversized flower arrangement. The lights have to be dimmed so my guests hopefully cannot tell that all of my dishes are plastic.

They arrive and I realize what an eclectic group of people I have invited to dinner. Anyone could see that merely by looking at them. Patricia arrived first, actually she was fifteen minutes early, which was more than a little annoying. She was dressed like she writes. She looked uncomfortable and stiff. Both her and the article she wrote were over done in some boring formal outfit. She had on one of those old lady business suits: a jacket with shoulder pads over a starched white shirt with an ill-fitting skit that came down past her knees. Her gray-streaked hair was in a tight bun, she was a little heavy, wrinkles on her forehead and around her eyes, thin lips with almost worn off lipstick, and cold dark brown eyes; picture your middle school librarian. We may as well have been from different planets. I wore my little black skirt, one of those black loose knit sweaters that you can see through with a black spaghetti strap top underneath, and black boots that come up to my knees. It’s a great outfit; it kind of gives off a Pulp Fiction bad ass vibe. I’m pretty sure everyone could tell that black is my favorite color. Chris arrived next, right on time. Seeing him was something of a relief. Classic boy clothes: Hawaiian printed board shorts, a Local Motion surfer shirt, and Reef flip-flops. Californian laid back good looks. He had sandy blonde hair that was in desperate need of a cut, bronzed skin, and hazel eyes. Chris’ releases on the Napster site were relaxed and to the point. It didn’t seem as though he tried to formalize everything and he appeared to have made an effort to write so that the releases would be easy for any user of Napster to understand. Lisa arrived right after him. She looks just like another woman I respect a great deal and I immediately liked her by association. Like my other guests, her dress resembled her writing style, intelligent and laid back. She wore light blue jeans and a black suede vest half buttoned with only a black sports bra underneath it. She had a liberal intellectual look: short black hair, green eyes, and small wire glasses. A combination of a mousy intellectual and a classic beauty, I knew we were in for quite an interesting night.

Conversation topics ranged from the outcome of the Napster case, what should have happened, what did happen, what will happen in the future, what artists were the least sympathetic towards Napster, and the role that previous Internet copyright laws (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) have played in the case. My guests and I all have different perspectives on the whole ordeal. The conversation had just about every possible point of view represented.

At the beginning of the night, everyone was formally introduced and we sat and made small talk for a while. Everyone was very polite, trying to get a feel for one another and the future endeavors of the night. Forty-five minutes passed and we sat down to eat at my very expensive, very classy, very imaginary table with a glass top. I passed out the plastic plates and told them to grab whatever they wanted. After everyone was settled, I asked Chris about what he thought was going to become of Napster. He began to explain, giving an account of some of the proceedings.

Looking back Chris’ account was probably a little biased due to the fact that the Napster trial affects him on a personal level, but at the time we had all gone into the dinner with set opinions and were not paying attention to details. He referenced the Digital Millennium Copyright Act arguing that Napster “falls under the law’s safe harbor because its services are similar to Web browsers or other applications offered on the Web, such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP) software.” Lisa spoke up and made the point that trading actually helps the music industry by exposing a large group of people to music they wouldn’t hear otherwise and by “promoting artists who’ve not yet been signed by a record label.” I had to agree with Lisa; CD’s are expensive, but using music sites I have been able to listen to artists for free. This has allowed me to fall in love with my latest little indie band, Storyville. And, since I liked them so much, I ordered the CD from their web site. Chris explained that my experience with Napster was part of the reason that the company was started up in the first place. Their goal was to make any genre of music “accessible and affordable.” The theory behind this was that if people liked the band enough, they would want to support it by buying the CD. I added that I know many people, myself included, that have bought a CD just to have the liner notes. Mainly what I loved about Napster was that you could find a plethora of obscure live recordings of artists performing a cover of one of their favorite artist’s songs.

Chris then began to explain that Napster needs to “obtain a ‘compulsory license’ similar to the one that allows radio stations to broadcast copyrighted songs and cable companies to transmit copyrighted television shows.” He stated that “Without such a license, it would be virtually impossible for independent Internet companies to survive.” During his explanation Lisa was leaning back in her chair listening and nodding in agreement. He pointed out that Congress has enacted compulsory licenses in the past to encourage the development not only of radio, but also of cable and satellite television. Under a compulsory license, an Internet company such as Napster would “agree to pay a fee set by Congress or the Library of Congress's Copyright Office.” That fee would be put into a royalty pool that would then make payments to individual copyright holders.

Patricia looked like she was going to die if she heard much more of this. Finally she jumped into the conversation saying something about needing to have restrictions so there is not complete anarchy. She stated that “compulsory licenses are a horrible idea to start with because it puts the government in the position of setting fees that otherwise might be the subject of negotiation between two companies Government price fixing never works." I told her that for such a supporter of the law she sure was sounding as if she didn’t trust our government system very much. At which point she began really overreacting, saying things like: “If Napster continues, they’re going to lose control of everything they have distributed digitally.” Honestly seeming to believe that Napster was “aiding the theft of copyrighted works by letting people trade music for free.” She acted as if the music industry will curl up and die if music trading continues. Lisa then spoke, bringing up the point that "lawsuits should not be used to destroy a viable and useful independent Internet distribution system." She spoke about freedom of speech arguing that “swapping files is free speech, and if Napster is shut down the ruling would violate the First Amendment because it could constrain people from sharing information.”

At this point Patricia is foaming at the mouth (figuratively speaking of course) and continues to cite the various evils that would come about if Napster were not terminated. No one really was taking her seriously because she got so worked up and was not trying to relate on a personal level. She was too caught up on the hard facts, many of which did not make sense or even relate to our argument. I saw that my other guests were beginning to get quite annoyed with her. In effort to keep them happy (the guests that were enjoyable to be around), I held a meeting in the kitchen and where we unanimously voted her off of my property. I walked her to the door only half listening to her accusing me of being rude (like I care). I opened the door for her and said: “You are the weakest link. Good bye.” This was something that I was quite confident that I could do because was my property and she was too abrasive. At least I was considerate of my other guests by consulting them about the situation first. The basic policy at my place is that you can stay as long as you like, provided that you are entertaining and pleasant to be around. Sadly, Patricia was neither.

Before my strange little dinner party occurred, my views on the whole Napster issue were that all of these big money corporations were just being greedy. It seemed to me that they were only concerned with money and that the music was inconsequential. What they overlook is that music is the whole point. It is part of our world, part of our culture, part of us. Music affects me daily. Songs are such an accessible way to express oneself. There is an Ani DiFranco song that I think sums up my whole stance on expression through music: “You sang just the way my heart would if it finally knew just what to say.” For centuries humans have used music to express their feelings freely. Some fat old men with too much money trying to take away the accessibility of music from the public is not what music is about and if they don’t understand that then they shouldn’t be allowed in the business at all.

Chris Whitten, the guy that works for Napster, was wonderful to talk to. I really did not know much about the kind of people that work for Napster before speaking with him and it gave me some hope for the music business knowing that there are still people who truly support and love music, not just money, involved in it. I loved that he said that when starting up the company their goal was to make any genre of music “accessible and affordable.” That supports the ideal of music.

Lisa was very cool to have over just because I love liberal intellectual people. I like to think that a lot of my views are along those lines. She supported what I was saying and added her own flair. Really she just confirmed what I thought with her knowledge of the Napster case. The thing she said that really hit me was when she stated that "lawsuits should not be used to destroy a viable and useful independent Internet distribution system." Exactly. The music is what matters, not all of this possessive greed.

Patricia was the one that I could not identify with at all. The main reason for this was probably that she was so stiff. I don’t do well with people that are so formal and won’t just let go. While she did try to present facts, it came across that she was just trying to contradict everyone else and point out that Napster is going to be the death of the music industry. I didn’t learn much from what she had to say due to that. It made it hard to see what she personally felt about the Napster case. I wish she could have presented her case using the facts without going crazy over it. Her saying that Napster was “aiding the theft of copyrighted works by letting people trade music for free” was too extremist and turned a lot of people off to what she was saying. I feel that in doing that she would have had a better chance of convincing more people of her point of view. She supported the big men at the top. Why would anyone want to support that? She never made it clear to me.

I guess I have kind of a hippie ideal when it comes to the industry, but I wouldn’t want to be caught dead working for the man. In no way do I support the rich getting richer while the poor just get poorer. I am hopeful that will start to change though. There is a growing popularity of indie labels and musicians taking control of their work. People are becoming less content with letting a label take their money and their creativity being ignored because it doesn’t fit the pop music formula. Napster helped artists like this to break through and other companies like Napster continue to do this even now. These big corporations can take your money and they can take your gold, but they can never take your heart and they can never take your soul. Viva Napster!

*This message has been brought to you in part by the following resources:
Lisa M. Bowman of ZDNet - http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2C4586%2C2627767%2C00.html
Patricia Jacbus of CNET - http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1679581.html
Chris Whitten of Napster, Inc. - www.napster.com/pressroom.html