IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

[Pyro]

 

Originally posted by Wilfrid:
Anybody else think this thread belongs in the Off Topic forum?

Yep.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Pyro:
Yep.

LOL PYRO!!!!!

     

BTW Napster rocked!!!   well I'll try those "clones" too  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-27-2000).]

[Dnil]

Its been deemed legal to make a copy for your yourself or a friend and this is Napsters argument.  I can send something to Udie and it is perfectly legal, Napster just does it on a much grander scale.  My question is do you not agree about making a copy for your friend?  If that is ok then Napster isnt a problem since nothing resided on Napsters property, just a big giant chat room with people trading songs.  I have had an absolute blast with it and have considered some CD's from it.  Either way the technology is out of the bag, cant turn back the clock.  Maybe now I'll get more then 3 good songs on a CD.  I hate having a 60min CD and 50min blows chunks.

------------------
Dnil
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[Dinger]

Yeah, we should only support technological advancements that help the Major Labels.  Remember when the CD first came in?  Material cost was 50% of vinyl, but somehow the price per copy doubled, and the artist royalties shrunk.  Sure got rid of those pesky small-time outfits though.
And you folks remember when they hauled out ol' Garth to go after stores that sold used CDs?
Major Labels aren't just against Napster, they're against the whole idea of MP3s, legal or not.
And I'm inclined to attribute their opposition not simply to revenues lost to millions of cyber-thieves ripping off the latest arthritic offerings from an aging group of East-Bay suburbanites.  With the facility to build niche-based communities and exchange data that the Internet offers, they stand to lose their virtual oligopoly on musical content.  They have a sleek mass marketing machine geared towards getting the maximum exposure for their music via traditional media; similarly, they've perfected their distribution network to record stores: you may not find what your looking for, but you'll certainly find what they're playing on the radio, or MTV.
Now throw in something like the Internet, and it gets scary.  Joe's garage band has an MP3, and a cheap CD-R to sell.  Some amateurs might even filter content for free.  How are you going to compete with amateurs?  And, unlike what they did with CDs, they're not going to be able to repackage last decade's hits in the new format and sell it -- it's already been done.

The point of this rant is that the traditional music industry seriously missed the boat on the last wave of technology, and their only reaction up to the present has been to try to maintain their control of the market by destroying any possible threats.  It's a losing battle.
And yes, I'm all in favor of royalties going to the artists.

[Torquila]

     

Originally posted by NATEDOG:
If I read correctly, it just said they have to shut down their servers till the end of the trial. if they win the trial, they can turn them back on.

Well i read and heard on the news that they lost because of the International copyright laws and they are being forced to close servers. But if im wrong pls inform me, BTW Napster is free advertising for the bands that dont get support from major record companies so its a double edged axe. On the other side you have the "sell-out" bands who are bought by Sony and flood the market like flocks of rats. Even tho it seems "right" that if it improoves sales, (my bro bought tons of CDs cause of sampling from Napster, so dont say it hurts the record companies or the bands) they wernt obeying copyright laws so they deserved to get punished in that repect. I just hope the clones can live up to the standard of Napster      

Here is a semi-funny "take-a-piss" at metallica's point of view on Napster.

Its in shockwave format: http://www.dookieburger.com/dookieburger/napsterbad.htm

DISCLAIMER::::The site www.dookieburger.com  itself contains unsuitable content if your under 18

"MONEY GOOD!! NAPSTER BAD!!"

[This message has been edited by The hand of the almighty Torquila (edited 07-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Torquila's dirty minions(edited 07-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Torquila (edited 07-27-2000).]

[arhurb]

Excellent post, Dinger.

The question is, from my point of view: ¿What interests is the Industry protecting when closing Napster? ¿The artists' (ask an amateur or a newcomer how is easier to tap the market)? ¿The customers' (price, convenience, broaden offer)? ¿Their own mass profit making machine?

Pls, tick the right answer.

At the end of the day, we have a Oligopoly, ant this situation, per se, only maximizes their profit via max. marginal income, not max customer satisfaction nor max quality of service, or max access to the market for new artists.

Of course, I'm all for Intelectual Property protection. But IMHO, that's not the point in this issue.

My less than $0.02.

Pepino

[sourkraut]

I always get a kick out of everyone using the "big bad record companys" as an excuse for STEALING intellectual property. Music is no different than software. Since I see HTC employees seem to believe that Napster is a good thing, perhaps they wouldn't mind making  their source code freely available.

Sour

[hblair]

 

Originally posted by sourkraut:
I always get a kick out of everyone using the "big bad record companys" as an excuse for STEALING intellectual property. Music is no different than software. Since I see HTC employees seem to believe that Napster is a good thing, perhaps they wouldn't mind making  their source code freely available.

Sour

hmmm, this oughta get interesting...

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by sourkraut:
I always get a kick out of everyone using the "big bad record companys" as an excuse for STEALING intellectual property. Music is no different than software. Since I see HTC employees seem to believe that Napster is a good thing, perhaps they wouldn't mind making  their source code freely available.

Sour

Hummm quite different things,sour...

I agree that Intellectual property is an issue here, and I think that it is not hurt by Napster...of course that is IMHO...

But you are comparing it with software...and asking HTC to put their source code freely available...what can lead to direct PYRACY (starting from freehosts and ending in other companies (ahem) copying the code to improve their own product).

Nothing of those 2 things CAN BE DONE in music business...if you copy a sample for a song, either you pay royalties or you go to Trial to waste your money in a lost battle (even Michael Jackson had to pay a huge ammount of money to Al Bano 3 years ago for something like that).

And of course there are no freehosts in music world...

Sorry Sour, but I dont see how is comparable those things. For me they are completely different.

[indian]

This is off topic forum isnt it !!!!!  

------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Indians Home page were links to help pages can be found.
Indian's Homepage

[Skuzzy]

 

Originally posted by Duckwing6:
wow i guess record lables were mightily pissed as the first TAPE-Recorders came up too .. c'mmon guys it's just another evolutional step for the marketing duedes (some call it E-commerce -> Sp?)

Wrong Duck.  To make a tape you had to acquire the original first.  Napster by-passed the important first step.

If Napster wins this, it will be a dark day for anyone who has or will use copyrights to protect intellectual property.

Example;  I freely post information targeted at helping those who need it.  I use 25+ years of intellectual acquirement to provide that information.  I do it freely and do not charge for it.
But, if someone takes my information and posts it to a WEB site,  for instance another ISP would love to be able to use what information I give to this community daily (well, i try  ),.....I would like to know I could call that ISP and ask them to pull that information off thier site because they are using it without my explicit permission.
Should another ISP benefit from my work?  Only if I give them permission to do so.

If Napster wins, I lose the chance to protect my intellectual property.  This could lead to me not willing to be so sharing of the years of work I have put into knowing all this information.

How about closer to home.  Say you come up with an idea that will lead to you living a really comfortable life, and, by the very course of implementing it, you have to show it to some investors so you can get the funding.
Well, if copyright goes away, they could take your idea, implement it, and you would have a very difficult time, if not impossible time, protecting your intellectual property.

The ramifications of this case are far reaching and wide ranging.  Napster needs to lose, or we all lose.



------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

[Torquila]

Seems like quite a few people here are stuck in the "moral and rights" la-la land. Skuzzy, even if Napster looses you realise that another company will pop up in another country and assimilate all the former Napster users into their program so nothing will be accomplished by taking down Napster. I think the record selling companies need to stop resisting and think of a clever way to start adapting (they always do).

[Skuzzy]

Torq, understand, the case is about "copyright infringement".  Regardless of who starts what where, Napster needs to lose or all copyrights will effectively become null and void.

It has nothing to do with morals or ethics, it has to do with law.  If people think copyrights should be dropped altogether, then so be it.  I for one, think copyrights are a good thing.

If copyright law was not an issue in the case, then I could care less about it.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp. http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net


[This message has been edited by Skuzzy (edited 07-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Skuzzy (edited 07-28-2000).]

[easymo]

 Can you say napstervich.

[Swoop]

Ahem.  Napster isnt dead yet:
 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12259.html


Swoop