Your son or daughter, neighbor, or cousin, may be stealing
music. Not from the shelves of the shopping mall, but directly from the
Internet. Or that's the way the record companies would like you to view
it.

            Napster, the free software that allows the sharing of
music in MP3 format on the Internet, has attracted not only kids, but
music-loving adults as well. This could spell financial disaster for both
the artists and the label companies, unless some restraints are put on
the process.

            "Why shouldn't we share music?" the next door neighbor's
kid will ask. "We share games, tapes, magazines and books all the time.
Is that a crime? Or is it a crime because with this, we are sharing with
people we don't know or don't see?"

THE DILEMMA

            They've got a point and it's one where the free flow
of information crashes headlong into something coming the other way: commerce.
Without commercial development of these products, there would be no incentive
for the artists or developers or distributors to produce them.

           With future micropayment techniques and online protection
for credit card numbers, the payment form would certainly work.

            Would record companies and individual artists benefit? The
Internet e-commerce model is introducing us to mass volume sales. You
might not want to pay $6.25 for a song, but 50 of your friends might venture
25 cents to buy it.

            The beauty of this peer-to-peer marketing is that it
offers the opportunity for a new marketing freedom for artists. No longer
would they be tied to the tight-knit music production process of the past.

            The upcoming Napster trial has the interest of three
other areas of commerce. The original judge's interpretation (Hon. Marilyn
Patel) could discourage the development of innovative devices and services
that could be abused by pirates, yes, but could have other potential uses.
Secondly, Internet Service providers fear that Judge Patel's ruling could
increase the ISP's limits of liability. Finally, Internet industry organizations
are concerned that Patel's earlier interpretation could set a precedent
requiring search engines to more carefully evaluate sites to which they
link, creative perhaps prohibitive costs.

     Record companies have expressed their displeasure with these events
by bringing suit against MP3 and Napster and attempting to dismantle similar
shareware software, such Gnuella.

            On the other hand, this type of software
allows emerging artists to go directly to their audience without the usual
hype and control that label companies are famous for exerting over musicians
under contract.

            What of the future? No doubt, the two extremes can be
joined by a royalty scheme that will say, "Want to download a song? Make
one of three choices: 25 cents, 50 cents, or $1.50."

           In stock photography, the RF (Royalty-Free) model is already
showing us that generic pictures can be sold at very low prices in volume
-enough to bring a new stream of revenue to photographers and agencies.
In the process, the system expands the range of possibilities for designers,
art directors, and graphic houses.

            Keep an eye on this new way to distribute your stock
photos. It may be the best way for emerging stock photographers, as well
as established ones, to sell their work.