Is there any movement in the 'music on-line' saga

�

A.� There is. After months of frustration since the enforced demise of Napster, music fans are finally to be given the chance of receiving music via their computers, but not surprisingly, the happy-go-lucky 'free music for everyone' philosophy is not expected to play a part in the replacements on offer.

�< xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Q.� Why did Napster close

A.� In spite of its massive popularity, hardly surprising given the concept of offering free music to people who would otherwise have to buy it through more orthodox channels, Napster could not survive the combined legal weight of the world's largest record companies who moved rapidly to close the legal loopholes through which Napster was able to trade.

�

Q.� So, if music on line is as popular as that, someone must have come up with an alternative

A.� They have, but the test of popularity will come when people realise that the service is not available for free. That will mean that downloading music from the internet using new�technology will have to fight for its market share along with every other medium available.

�

Q.� What's going to be available

A.� Thus far, there are two new operations, both backed by major record company finance, and no doubt some serious legal protection. 'MusicNet' is the operating name of the system supported by Warner, BMG and EMI, and operating in the same arena will be 'Pressplay', from Sony and Universal. First off the blocks is MusicNet which has announced a start-up list of around 25,000 titles, which should be ready for access this week. The plan is for fans to be able to access the service through AOL and RealNetworks, both of whom claim they will be ready this side of Christmas.

�

Q.� So where's the difference between a service from MusicNet, and the one Napster offered before their legal curtailment

A.� Apart from the most obvious difference, which is that downloaders will be obliged to pay a monthly subscription to access the material, the difference is the far more sophisticated software used by MusicNet. Using a new format called DRM, MusicNet will be able to offer subscribers music that is encrypted in such a way that it cannot be transferred on to either portable MP3 players, or CDs. The other major difference is the time limit imposed�- after one month, the files will automatically delete themselves from the system.

�

Q.� And Pressplay

A.� Pressplay has also lined up some heavy hitters on the Internet support side of their operation, MP3.com, Yahoo! and MSN will ensure access to 125,000 tracks to subscribers.

Q.� Does that mean people can choose either system, and get access to the same roster of artists

A.� Sadly not, and this is where the competition starts to bite. Not surprisingly, each set of companies is keen to promote its own labels' artists, and will not be making material available from the competing companies' musicians. Simply put, fans of Christina Aguilera, Eric Clapton, Whitney Houston and The Red Hot Chilli Peppers will be looking towards MusicNet, while PressPlay subscribers can enjoy the benefits of Aerosmith, U2, Weezer, Dr Dre, and Sheryl Crow. Other artists' material from either provider will be the result of licensing agreements yet to be finalised, it is still very much early days in the new age of pay-to-play downloading.���

�

Q.� Still, at least if EMI are in the running ... so The Beatles will be online

A.� Not so fast! The three surviving band members�own the Beatles' digital catalogue, and they have so far declined to authorise its use, and they may not be the only ones�- time will tell.

�

Q.� Is it going to work

A.� The $64 Question! The companies claim to have done their research, and talk up the notion of superior quality, regular hassle-free downloads, and loads of hotly anticipated�musical output. Detractors advise that quality has never been an issue, and users accept the occasional 'kick off' from the system as an acceptable hazard, more than balanced by the fact that downloading has hitherto been totally free of charge. It all proves that with such enormous sums of money to be made, and possibly lost, the music industry is waiting to see which way the consumers will jump.

�

In the mean time, the proliferation of illegal file-sharers continues, bolstered by the maverick approach that goes perfectly with the proverbial slap in the face for the 'Establishment' that underpins the raison d'etre of so much popular music in the first place. Not for the first time, the words 'music' and 'business' are trying hard to reach a suitable compromise that will allow them to co-exist peacefully in cyberspace.

�

If you have a question on any style of music, click here

By Andy Hughes

�