Author Topic: Napster.... Freedom or Fraud? (Read 3068 times)

Nash · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2001, 12:09:00 AM »

... or the trading, Nate.

Blank tapes, recordable CD's etc. are for your own personal use. It does not allow for making your files open to any stranger that likes what ya have and decides to download it. It doesn't not allow for you to peruse 1000's of computers for something you like in return. Why? Neither of ya own it.

But don't take my word for it. Try this. Open up yer garage this sunday - plant a large sign in yer yard that says "Latest blockbuster releases copied on VHS. Will give you 3 for every one I recieve in return". Then tell the cops that will show up at yer door innabout, oh, 5 minutes that it's ok 'cuz ya legally purchased the blank VHS tapes.

Btw - it's nothing remotely LIKE radio. Because radio pays royalties on the songs it plays. In return, radio gets to subject you to advertisements. See, that's the business agreement the two parties worked out. I guess they never went to the 'entitlement' school of business the rest of ya did.

Yer well aware of Freehost, Nate. I would love it if ya could explain how this is different... I mean, (and to paraphrase your post), why do they make computers, disk drives and everything else like that if it were illegal? It would only be the SALE of Freehost that would be illegal...

Er....right?

It's all intellectual property Nate. And the internet is really a new frontier WRT these issues. I woulda guessed you'd be a bit more sensitive to them, actually, seeing as HTC's livelyhood is really no different than a song.

[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-01-2001).]

blur · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2001, 08:35:00 AM »

Napster itself does nothing illegal. It's a medium to facilitate file exchange. Are the files legal or illegal? This has to be decided by applying current law to each individual transaction, obviously a gigantic undertaking. The fact that Napster was nearly shut down last summer demonstrates the extent of corporate control over our legal system.

If we look at the bigger picture, I think that Napster represents the first crack in the dam of corporate control. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet will now allow fans to communicate with and purchase music directly from the artists themselves. I have no problem with throwing a few bucks directly to a starving artist or even to a rich one if they produce something I enjoy. I think it's kind of cool. I believe this portends future business models; that of decentralized economic units.

StSanta · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2001, 10:01:00 AM »

Yeah blur, and it is THIS that the record companies cry out about; the possibility of not being the deciders, the possibility of someone finding a different way of distributing themselves.

To hell with them

blur, natedog, I'll buy you a beer for the radio argument and that last statement

.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch

Nash · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2001, 10:13:00 AM »

I agree with ya there, blur. I can't say it pains me to see the record companies bleed over this. The way napster works right now, though - the creators of the work don't see a dime for it. Ah I dunno... maybe the extent of the piracy is neccessary to bring about a shift in the relationship between the musician's labour and the compensation for it. That *would* be pretty cool.

It's tricky though. Take away the wretched record companies, and who pays for the recording costs ($200,000-$500,000)? That expense has to come up front. Yer not going to see the banks floating loans like that to musicians. I don't care how much mrfish thinks musicians should work for free, there's still a ton of cash involved in getting the music from the garage of some band into yer car stereo. It will be interesting.

Nash · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2001, 10:36:00 AM »

er... but don't get me wrong. It still is piracy. You make that choice. As long as you do, you completely forfeit your right to complain about what goes on in China or the folks here in AH who abuse the free 2 weeks. It's no different.

NATEDOG · « **Reply #50 on:** February 01, 2001, 10:38:00 AM »

Nash, you can download this game for free, you can play it off line for free, you can play it H2H for free, you can even have a 8 person host for free, but you gotta pay to go to the big show... just like in music, you can download it for free, you can listen to it on the radio for free, you can barrow it from a friend for free, you can even hear it at a club or party for free, but you gotta pay to go to the big show. you even have to pay for a quaility CD..... music sales have gone up since Napster came along, people are buying stuff that they would have never bought if it wasn't for Napster. I have! I'm not saying that no one is abusing Napster, cuz alot of people are. I'm just saying that Napster is bringing back music to where it use to be, where everything was about the live shows! If they think the only way they can make money is with concerts, just think how bad bellybutton those shows will be. I support all my local bands, and all my friends' bands, and if Napster can help them along the way, like it already has, I'm all for it.

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

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

NATEDOG · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2001, 10:42:00 AM »

In other words, I would much rather give my money to the band, not the record company.

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

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

blur · « **Reply #52 on:** February 01, 2001, 11:11:00 AM »

StSanta I'll take you up on that beer offer as long as it's a homebrew and not the product of an environmentally unconscious ethically amoral multi-national mega-corporate dictatorship.

Nash · « **Reply #53 on:** February 01, 2001, 12:17:00 PM »

Kudos on yer support of local bands, Nate. Texas (especially Austin) has always been a great area for live music. You're very lucky. Up here the majority of live music venues have been converted into, well, basically discos. Buncha teens blitzed out on E swaying to BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. Went on tour with a band throughout the USA a couple of years ago, and the same thing was pretty much starting to happen there as well.

And the record companies should be shot for spoon feeding the masses complete crap for the past few years. But these things are cyclical, for the most part. It was a pretty neat time, say, 10-15 years ago (has it been that long??!) when bands like Husker Du, the Replacements and the Pixies started to surface and turn the music industry on its ear. I suspect this will happen again relatively shortly... and who knows - maybe Napster will be the reason for it.

I'm kinda torn on the issue, to be honest.

mrfish · « **Reply #54 on:** February 01, 2001, 12:22:00 PM »

nash - the record companies would still put up the money for the recording and production, which is minimal compared to sales revenue - in fact their production costs are so small its practically a crime for them to charg $16 or more per cd - and they would still make a profit. the profit for the record companies would just be less definitely nowhere near zero.

as natedog mentioned the band would still make money just less for the rec. co. because their revenue stream form recording would go down but their touring income would remain static. they make less profit but there is still profit being made - quite a bit

besides - cd sales have increased 8 straight quarters despite napster - these worthless record co's are simply worried about losing a portion of the profit not all of it - they will make less but they will still be multi-millionaires and so will the band so who cares? i mean what is the difference between

10 million and 17 million? how many ferraris and mansions does one need?

Nash · « **Reply #55 on:** February 01, 2001, 12:31:00 PM »

That makes absolutely no sense to me, mrfish. It's a combination of being uninformed, screwy math, and you imposing what you think someone should earn, rather than the market deciding that for itself. Can't really comment further.

mrfish · « **Reply #56 on:** February 01, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

<S> fair enough nash - i have this wacky notion that artists can make really good money compared to people who have real jobs and still conduct themselves like human beings with more than the holy almighty dollar driving their decisions - you are right about the market though - it will have the final say

Tac · « **Reply #57 on:** February 01, 2001, 01:17:00 PM »

Yeah, how many child day cares does Micheal Jackson need to own/run?

Boroda · « **Reply #58 on:** February 01, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »

The Kinks, Lola vs. Powerman and Moneyground, 1970.

Wonder what Ray Davies thinks about MP3 and Napster.

------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

Boroda · « **Reply #59 on:** February 01, 2001, 01:30:00 PM »

Just noticed a so-called "freehost" was mentioned here...

In fact, many people even from relatively "poor" Russia think that Russian WB server is the place where they can train for free before signing on to the "Real" WB. No kidding, it's true.

------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS