Fergus Cassidy

Musical chairs

IT'S gas when you think about it. You can't get most copyrighted songs for free on the internet, but you can get them free with newspapers. With the current serious clamp down in the US reaching the stage of individuals being sued for illegally downloading, the music industry is not taking no for an answer.

There's a sackful of irony going on here. You may remember back to the murky past when it was being predicted that the net, and the web in particular, was going to close down newspapers. It was all part of the silliness that was abroad in those heady e-days.

Not that I paid a blind bit of attention to those forecasts. It's a nightmare trying to connect to the internet while perched on the jacks. Believe me I've tried. And for those of you who have done or do this, please keep it to yourself and wash your keyboard afterwards. In any case, the internet is useless at drying floors, wrapping ashes or protecting plates and cups.

Still, the predicted demise of newspapers caught hold enough to frighten the big publishers into going online and spending a small fortune in doing so. Most, except for a few giants, have retreated behind subscription services or carry articles well beyond their sell-by date.

Some of them got a little jumpy, making noises about needing permission for linking to their content and generally being a bit bolshy. Understandable in a way, considering they had spent all this money for nothing.

Now a lot of newspapers have lately moved into the music business, another industry sector that the internet was going to wipe out or at least break up.

The two media industries which had, supposedly, most to lose from the unstoppable popularity of the internet have formed an alliance of convenience. I know that the newspapers pay for the cost of the music and manufacture of the CDs, but the music comes free to the buyer. Higher circulation figures are hoped to recoup the costs.

So bizarrely newspapers have achieved what the internet couldn't. It's going to take some time before a working solution is found for pay-to-play on the net and in the meantime the newspapers will have the field all to themselves. Unless cereal companies start getting in on the act. Korn - free with every box of Kelloggs?

It has always been logical to presume that a new technology would threaten to do away with previous ones. Television was going to kill stage productions. Cassette tapes were going to erase vinyl. And video recorders were going to wipe out the cinemas. For a short while there was a drop in attendances alright but it came back up and is hitting record levels.

Newspapers were never seriously threatened by the internet. The net is a very different animal altogether. It's not owned or controlled by any one group or individuals for starters. Parts of it, if you include personal computers, may stretch and bend the definitions of monopoly to near breaking point, but computers are only a part of the overall make up of the net.

The net is not part of the media at all at all. Well not media as it's been known for generations. Of course there are similarties. But that's all there is.

The net doesn't have the tradition and history that newspapers have. How could it, considering that newspapers have been around since the 18th century? Current circulation figures are enough to suggest that the habit of reading newspapers is deeply rooted and will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

What the internet in its entirety does like nothing before it, is gathering and disseminating information in its rawest form. The web in particular is out of this world when it comes to processing a universe of data and information.

But it's so young that there is still much to be done on putting a shape on that information. There's so much of it, with a diversity almost impossible to comprehend.

That's what newspapers and journalism can be so damn good at. And vastly experienced at doing it. Putting shape and form, in whatever hue you fancy, on information and knowledge. Context is the one thing that the internet can't yet do. Maybe in time, but that landscape is unrecognisable at the moment.

It's the water-cooler factor. That US euphemism for a media 'score' measured by people talking about it afterwards. The thing about newspapers is that they're read by thousands of people roughly around the same time, at least the same day. It may have been a mantra of the ecommerce evangelists who talked of reaching a global audience of gazillions, but not all the same time for crying out loud.

And that's an important difference. People talking about stuff they read or hear is one of the mainstays of how public opinion is formed and evolves. If in doubt, tune in to the radio talk shows. Most of the yakking is sparked by something triggered by the mass media. Items that were of such importance on a Monday, are largely forgotten about by Wednesday.

News triggered by the internet is just not on the same level. In fact it's almost non-existent. When it is mentioned, it's always a tale of woe. Spam this, virus that. Having influence is not what the internet is about. It's too new and diverse for that.

There's every reason then to believe that newspapers and the internet can co-exist quite happily for a long time to come. Their abilities are unique and very different. They inhabitant separate worlds to some extent but there are many crossovers and parallels between the two.

The internet is but a baby in the communications family and no one really knows what lies ahead.

Some, though, have a unique view of the bigger picture and next week I'll have an interview with Harald Alvestrand, a Norwegian who is the chairman of the Internet Engineering Task Force. The IETF is the engine room of the good ship internet.

No that's what I call music.