Author Topic: Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?  (Read 3070 times)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »
Wow! What a thread!

For me, bottom line: Is it copyrighted?

If it is, you already know the answer.

Without world-wide copyright protection the way new things get created and distributed would radically change. Most likely not for the better, either.

There are advantages for those that "cheat" on the system in place however. On a large scale, look at China. On a small scale, look at Napster users.  

Continue the argument!
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2001, 01:31:00 PM »
Yes Santa.  Why do they not see the benifit in giving away for free what they used to get money for?  Those short sighted fools.

I use Napster on occasion, but I am under no illusions that it is the great Robin Hood of the internet (nor do I tell the bold faced lie that it makes me buy more CDs.  Really, who do you think you're kidding with that argument?).  I am downloading for free music I would otherwise have to pay for, and that is theft.

Why is it not prosectuted?  It's not practical.  Napster itself does not do the pirating, those downloading and sharing music do, and nobody is about to start wasting resources trying to track everything transmitted through there.

Offline MiG Eater

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
      • http://www.avphoto.com
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2001, 01:39:00 PM »
Napster should be an alternate means of music distribution for those who don't want or cannot get a record contract and distribution deal.

Taking copyrighted music that is available through existing distribution (stores, online, etc.) is theft.  

MiG

Offline NATEDOG

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1186
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2001, 01:41:00 PM »
Napster is just the radio of the internet. You can download songs from napster, or you can record them off the radio. Same thing.

------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-

".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2001, 01:45:00 PM »
Sorry, don't mean to be a pest, but why would judges allow Napster to operate legally pending an agreement with the record industry if trading music over the internet via Napster is a crime? Something isn't adding up here, but I can't put my finger on it... do I have my facts wrong?

Gunthr
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2001, 01:51:00 PM »
Sorry for the long post, but here's a bit of a speech that Courtney Love presented to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, in New York. I thought it might be enlightening to all of those who think musicians are rich and don't really need you to buy their albums (duh), or who might just be interested in seeing how freaking RAPED musicians get.

If this stuff is boring, don't bother reading, but you might find it interesting.

Courtney Love:

This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.

What happens to that million dollars?

They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.

That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.

That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.

The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)

So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.

The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.

The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.

All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.

Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!

How much does the record company make?

They grossed $11 million.

It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.

The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.

They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.

Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.

Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the radio, selling records, getting new fans and being on TV is great, but now the band doesn't have enough money to pay the rent and nobody has any credit.

Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ... they can pay the mortgage forever but they'll never own the house. Like I said: Sharecropping. Our media says, "Boo hoo, poor pop stars, they had a nice ride. diddly them for speaking up"; but I say this dialogue is imperative. And cynical media people, who are more fascinated with celebrity than most celebrities, need to reacquaint themselves with their value systems.
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.

The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.

Offline mrfish

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2001, 01:53:00 PM »
i blame the musicians - they dont have to let the money-grubbers pimp them to the masses it is their decision and many bands set out to do what it takes to make money regardless of style

even with napster a band is going to sell cds and make some money. i dont buy more but i still  buy them - i dont like having to deal with some computer everytime i want to hear music -

the difference is they maybe make 1.2 million instead of 5.6 million - so what you are getting paid for playing for cod sake! the bus driver makes no where near that and has a real job!artists should never think of money - money sucks and defiles real art the two should always be seperate

how much money does it take to be happy? i was in a few bands in high school and through my early 20's we did pretty good - its more important to have someone know your music than to make $$$ off it - i mean really, you re just playing music - if someone pays you even $100,000 or $500,000 per year for that you should be overjoyed - that supports a very comfortable lifestyle - what more could you need? that wont buy food?

copyright law is what it is - no dispute that napster is illegal - but i am not looking to the law to change the napster situation, rather the musicians.

i mean you can still make money touring and there will always be people buying cd's its just a matter of more vs less profit - you are gonna make something just how much? all the bloodsuckers associated with musicians would never stand for that- all the lawyers and investors and money lender shrews.....

metallica and the like suck the biggun' and are a bunch of greedy ex-cool guys....they might as well put on suits and go punch a clock at goldman sachs!

who cares if you are making 100 thousand  or a 100 million - if the question comes up then you arent a real musician - or athelete for that matter - you are no better than the stock broker that just lied to get the commission and pad his precious net worth

Offline Kieren

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2001, 01:55:00 PM »
The analogy I would make, Gunthr, is that of an apartment tennant who is abusing the lease. You know they are breaking the law, but they are in the house. Throwing them out on the street before they have exhausted their legal rights is violating their rights. In short, possession is 9/10's of the law.

Napster has a business in place. The remedy for their illegal action is to kill that business. Before that business can be squashed it must be proven through all legal avenues that it must be squashed. Had the record industry jumped in before Napster got so big, it would have been a completely different story. As it is now, Napster is established, and much harder to kill.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2001, 02:03:00 PM »
Actually Gunthr, the courts threw an injunction at Napster pending the outcome of the trial. In otherwords, the court told Napster that they were probably gonna lose, shut it down NOW, and we'll deal with the penalties soon.

Dunno if you were aware of it, but the final day before Napster went offline, the number of d/l's on the internet were probably the largest ever. Anyone remember playing AH that night? Warp mania. It was down for about 4-5 days if I remember correctly.

Anyways, the record companies decided to take it out of court to begin discussions with Napster on how they could join forces. In the meantime (and that is now),  Napster could remain running provided it is used for uncopyrighted material.

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2001, 02:46:00 PM »
Kieren, Landlord/Tenant matters like your example are civil matters, and as such, are not handled in criminal courts. I know, because I've had the incredible poor judgement to own rental property.  

However, if we stick with your analogy anyway, it still seems that the party who is abusing the lease, ie, not paying rent for instance, may be hurting the landlord, but as far as the law is concerned, said party is not going to be charged with a crime. Evicted maybe, but not jailed or fined by the courts. Said party has simply not adhered to the terms of their agreement with the landlord, and said party is only civily liable in my opinion.

 I downloaded the original "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window" song by Patti Page, and "Ally Oop" by the Hollywood Gargyles for my 6 year old daughter, from someone who agreed to share them with me via Napster. Assuming that the above is copyrighted matierial, did I commit a crime? It doesn't feel like it to me. Am I civilly liable though?...and if I'm civily liable, what about the civil court judge who gives Napster permission to operate? It isn't clear.

I guess the whole thing will be moot soon, regardless. $5/month for Napster would be a "steal"  as long as you can sign up for one month at a time...

Gunthr
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2001, 02:56:00 PM »
"Napster is just the radio of the internet. You can download songs from napster, or you can record them off the radio. Same thing."

It is the same thing....both practices are illegal.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2001, 03:28:00 PM »
It doesnt matter if napster, the company goes out of bussiness or are closed/jailed/whatever. Their software is out there..in huge amounts.

Heck, wasnt napster closed for a few weeks when they got into legal trouble? What happened then? People kept sharing files..thats the whole napster program for you. There is no need to have a centralized server. When napster was closed, the amounts of downloads sure were huge, but when it WAS closed, thousands of other servers "popped up" all across the world. Heck, there was even a "napigator" that would search the internet for a napster server. I'd like to see a US court try and close a server in say, the middle of China or in an alley in Hong Kong.

When metallica whined, you could still find ALL their songs in these servers without the "this is copyrighted material, you will be shut down" (or whatever) messages that would come up if you were using an official napster server.

I dont buy CD's because I dont want to pay like 20 bucks for just one or 2 songs that I like. Its bad bussiness for ME.

I remember there was an internet based company that marketed "custom made" CD's, where you would pay per song. What happened was you could put music from different bands into one CD and you would then "check out" and pay the cost. The price + S&H was about the same price as a CD on the store. It was a GREAT idea. One day the wesbite dissapeared and never saw it again. I did get 5 great CD's from them. Never found a similar company doing that either  

If record companies had done something like that, their profits not only would be enormous since people would buy CD's filled with the stuff they wanted and liked. They wouldve made me a VERY happy cd-buyer too. But they preffered to stick to selling high priced cd's filled with crap and only one or 2 songs I liked... and I would only buy a cd when I had extra cash and happened to be walking by a CD store and saw the CD (which is a very rare occassion).

Then Napster came along. Now this is free. Illegal or not, the record companies only have themselves to blame for this.

I love napster. I've found songs from bands that are struggling to get discovered, and Napster certainly helps them a LOT in that sense. www.crosswinds.net/~the475thfg/casualties.mp3  is an example of such a group. (please download it, its a GREAT song & great music).Napster has infected the market share of the record companies, and it will never heal.

LONG LIVE THE INTERNET!  

[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 01-31-2001).]

Offline mrfish

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2001, 04:59:00 PM »
any guitar players out there?

remember OLGA - the online guitar tablature place - people would post their versions of all kinds of songs so basically you could download free sheet music.

it was great! (and still is)

they got heat from the shrews who owned the rights to the songs and eventually got a cease and desist order - thier answer was to continuously move the archive to a different server - one in poland one in florida and so on just ahead of the authorities -

the music was just a musician's interpretations of the songs and they made no money on it anyway  - i remember paying $25 or more for books of sheet music when i was learning to play - OLGA had about every song you could think of right there for free - they weren't always 100% accurate but close enough

Offline NATEDOG

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1186
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2001, 06:07:00 PM »
"It is the same thing....both practices are illegal."

If it's illegal, why do they make blank tapes, tape recorders, VCR's, recordable CD's, CD to CD recorders, and everything else like that. The SALE of recorded items is illegal.  



[This message has been edited by NATEDOG (edited 01-31-2001).]

Offline Quiet109

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
      • http://...changing...
Napster.... Freedom or Fraud?
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2001, 06:27:00 PM »
Napster is fine if you have patience.

I don't, but my fiance does.
I'd rather just buy the CD or have my buddy write a copy onto a CD.

QUIET

------------------
 

[This message has been edited by Quiet109 (edited 01-31-2001).]