an interesting quote to his online diary back in around '99 or 2000 or so... back when napster was first coming up in the media and the whole debate was starting to get warm

Robert Fripp-

The RIAA represents the interests of the majors.
The interests of the majors are contrary to the interests of artists.
The RIAA does not represent the interests of artists, and to suggest this is fundamentally dishonest.

The RIAA does not have the aim of making music available to the listening community.
Napster does make music available to the listening community.
The RIAA does not represent artists.
Napster does not represent artists either.

When music files are exchanged "freely" there is a currency of exchange which is not acknowledged.
This currency of exchange is the work of artists.

The good news: Napster demonstrates the importance which people attach to having music in their lives.
This is legitimate: music is a need in our lives.

The bad news: the public at large is prepared to act illegitimately to serve this legitimate impulse.

The challenge: to legitimise, validate & redeem the clearly demonstrated want, wish, need & intent to share with others music which we value.

This is one of the key points of debate yesterday between David Singleton, Steve Ball & the VRHL. We are continuing this discussion today & looking at how BTV & DGM might be part of this.

Clearly, there are major repercussions concerning copyright. Practice determines law in a liberal democracy. The online strategies of the majors are currently clueless in the extreme: why pay $15.00 for an online CD? This is absurd. With the exception of particular long-term studio projects (like Gabriel) most CDs are hugely overpriced already. A lot of this has to do with high street distributors, who won't accept online distribution at a lower price. But radical new technologies provide radically new ways & kinds of social living. This requires changes in mind-sets of comparable novelty & flexibility, and established institutions don't much wish to change, nor have the flexibility to do so.

Fundamental questions for me:

How does moral development keep pace with technological development?

How may we legitimately serve our legitimate impulses if existing channels are inequitable or unfair? This is relatively straightforward in principle: establish legitimate, equitable & fair channels. However, in practice you come up against vested interests & the industry's "standard practices"; for example, in an earlier time, against expressions such as "this is not the EG way".

So, how to establish a consensus of what is fair and equitable in the transactions between the players in the music system? Here, not only does the artist go up against the industry (always), but also their listening community (often).

The debate continues.

http://www.disciplineglobalmobile.com/foundingaims.shtml

http://www.disciplineglobalmobile.com/businessaims.shtml

Gnut-great post man! I hadn't read this before, so it was still news to me. Fripp is truly an innovator. I can still remember In the Court of the Crimson King, and haven't heard it in years.

Some interesting and cogent observations.

I've always liked Fripp's solo and quasi-solo work (using Frippertronics or with Brian Eno, for example) and this has given me more than a metric tonne of respect for the man.

Thanx for pointing this out, Gnut!

I've been a huge fan of King Crimson for years. I've read some of the stuff on DGM's site and Robert Fripp has a depth of knowledge of this subject that few others have, since he's been involved in music for so long and seems to be an intelligent man in general. He's definitely on the short list of musicians who could be a force in reforming the industry. He's right; the big labels do not look out for artists, and neither did Napster (nor the p2p networks today presumably). The best aim for artists is going to be looking out for themselves and finding and banding together with other like-minded musicians.

On a personal note, I've had the chance to see King Crimson in concert a few times. Seeing a virtuoso like Robert Fripp practice his art is a rare privelege.

"..When music files are exchanged "freely" there is a currency of exchange which is not acknowledged.
This currency of exchange is the work of artists..."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Robert Fripp is a smart dude. The strangest concert I ever saw was Fripp playing together with a bunch of his guitar students from a school where he taught. There was no stage and the players sat on folding chairs in a semi-circle with Fripp in the middle. There were no chairs for the audience - we had to sit on the floor that was carpeted and had throw pillows strewn about. A few times between songs Fripp would stand up and read negative reviews and then he would critique the reviews. It was a goof!

fripp is the shit. i'm still waiting for that very secret fripp/danny carey/les claypool project.

verry interesting point of veiw on the riaa. this was my favorite part:
"The RIAA does not represent the interests of artists, and to suggest this is fundamentally dishonest.

The RIAA does not have the aim of making music available to the listening community.
Napster does make music available to the listening community.
The RIAA does not represent artists.
Napster does not represent artists either."

It's just so true.

Me too. It's actually Adrian Belew with Claypool and Carey, not Fripp. That should be awesome.

Fripp rules!

riaa = Easy Money
Cary Sue = 21st Century Schiziod Man