When you pass a week, and you're hard on the street, the dirt heaps up like the autumn compost pile. Much has happened in the music industry since last I wrote, and certainly much more is yet to come. These days, the permanency of prior litigation seems beset by the threats and slurs from the artist community. The Zeitgeist of this week focuses not on MP3.com and Napster directly, but rather on the droves of supporters and dissidents that have crashed the scene. The web sites have managed to slide into the shadows as their cohorts capture the spotlight and battle for ground during these delicate proceedings. Believe you me, I've seen some stand-offs in my time, but I suspect this may get ugly, if not downright crass.

Elton John: Friend of Diana, enemy of Napster.

Of course, the most notorious skirmish continues. Metallica is fervent of both emotion and action, and the band is engaged in a heated lawsuit with Napster, the company that created the controversial file-sharing program[of the same name. Napster refuses to back down despite the mounting support that Metallica seems to have garnered. Big players such as Elton John, Sean Combs, and Mike D (of the Beastie Boys) have defamed Napster for supporting a haven of piracy and copyright violations. After numerous threats of lawsuits, Dr. Dre has finally committed and is suing Napster because his songs were never pulled from Napster's servers. He announced this week that he would sue in line with the existing Metallica lawsuits. If anything, it's a good thing that that lawyer of his finally managed to acquire a Xerox machine. Unfortunately, nothing else has been said by Dre and Co. regarding the LucasFilm Ltd. lawsuit, wherein Dre is being sued for illegal use of the THX "Deep Note" sound effect. Many insiders think Lucas is a subversive Napster supporter and is providing the low blow for this title bout.

USC: Yellow bellied rats.

The University support couldn't be more of a joke. As I related last week, Yale and Indiana University administrators banned students from using Napster as they sat quaking in their deep leather chairs. Additionally, and with a particularly sour twist, USC officials said students could use Napster only on computers designated by the University. That's what they're paying $22,000 a year for in tuition and "fees."

Instant Poll

However, on the other side of the tracks we have Limp Bizkit, the hard-rock band that has proven itself to be an adamant Napster supporter. Limp Bizkit singer, Fred Durst, announced at a news conference that he feels Napster is an excellent way to preview an album before purchase. He believes that the Internet (with the help of Napster) is an excellent forum to market and promote music to the greater audience. Some artists have turned a curious ear to these statements, and some have bolstered Durst's stance with their support. Limp Bizkit has announced that it will begin a free concert tour across the US, entirely funded by Napster. However, rumors run rampant about the conflicting messages this action sends. On the one hand, Limp Bizkit is taking an assertive stance for the file-trading software: Members are offering to play free concerts for all their eager fans. On the other hand, though, they face ridicule and scorn from a music community skeptical of their motives: They stand to make more money on promotional products and concessions than they will lose on the ticket sales. In any event, they cleverly attached the word "free" in front of the word "concert," which is more than enough for the average Limp Bizkit fan.

In related buzz, the Offspring, which was earlier purported by Dr. Dre's lawyer to have sided against Napster, has now rallied behind Limp Bizkit. On the band's official web site, The Offspring states, "At no time have we thought about or discussed taking any legal action against Napster." One would think that a lawyer of a big-time music artist might check his facts before releasing names in a suit. But then again, one might think otherwise about becoming a lawyer in the first place.

In the seemingly more sophisticated forum of RIAA vs. MP3.com, litigation has taken an interesting twist. The "payback for playback" scheme devised by Michael Robertson and the MP3.com team is designed to compensate artists for the number of "listens" their songs receive. They promise to give out $200,000 American dollars this month. Basically, new artists must receive 15 unique listeners within a one-day period to qualify for reimbursement.

Michael Robertson: Fending off the Grinch.

The specific amount of money seems to be dictated by an elusive "user activity formula" that somehow calculates the appropriate portion of the aforementioned amount. Not to imply that things are fishy, but rumor has it that the integrity of the formula stinks worse than a dank wharf net. Critics are beginning to demand the hard data, as promises are not readily tolerated in this industry (and especially with regard to money). Hopefully, MP3.com and company will come correct with the math - there's only so much room in the trash bin for red herrings, you know.

Though "payback" may prove too little too late. With a stern deliberateness, Judge Jed S. Rakoff found MP3.com guilty of infringing the copyrights of the RIAA this Friday morning, the 28th of April. MP3.com lawyers assure that an appeal is in the works, though investors are clearly not as hopeful. In a matter of minutes the stock plummeted some 40% and continues to slip as word spreads. Am I surprised? I can't say that I am, and I can't say that I'm not going to buy up some devalued shares. Now though, the news that everyone is waiting for is the state of Beam-it. Will the service die forever?

The buzz this week alludes to the much larger picture of artists' rights and the related issues of copyright ethics. The youth (and majority of the Napster community) rally behind free sharing of MP3s and other music files, whereas the RIAA and music bands fanatically affront this wanton jibe. The sad reality is that the artists, in suing Napster and MP3.com, are in effect suing their fan base. Ultimately, the consumers are the ones being targeted as pirates and criminals. The music industry as we know it will change regardless of the final outcome of these proceedings. The real question remains: When the day is done, will file-sharing issues stop with music, or is this the beginning of a photo-, art-, video-, and film-trading era (and likewise, an era of their corresponding lawsuits)?

Until next week, I'm Frank Bourbon, hard on the street ad vitam aut culpam.

Getting/Giving the finger: "I don't know any charities I'd wanna give money to." -Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit, in response to why he wouldn't charge a nominal fee and turn his tour into a charity event. Now that's a free lesson.   Frank Bourbon is always hard on the street -- digging through the trash, uncovering the dirt, and sifting through the music industry debris. To add your dirt to the pile, shoot him an e-mail at bourbon@gamespot.com. Back to the homepage